Комментарий к Вайикра 25:7

ולבהמתך ולחיה AND FOR THY BEAST, AND FOR THY CATTLE [… SHALL ALL THE INCREASE THEREOF BE FOOD] — If the wild beast may eat thereof how much the more is this the case with cattle to supply which with food is your duty! What, then, is intended by Scripture specially stating “and for thy cattle”? But by mentioning it, it intends to put on a level (to suggest equal treatment of) the cattle with the wild beast: so long as the wild beast has the opportunity of eating from the produce in the field, feed your cattle with what is stored in the house; as soon, however, as food has disappeared for the wild beast from out of the field, make it disappear for thy cattle from out of thy house [i. e. clear it out of thy house into the field and make it thus available to all animals alike] (Sifra, Behar, Chapter 1 8; Taanit 6b).

AND FOR THY CATTLE, AND FOR THE BEASTS THAT ARE IN THY LAND, SHALL ALL THE INCREASE THEREOF BE FOR FOOD. “If wild beasts may eat thereof, how much more so is this the case with cattle which it is your duty to feed! Why then does it say and for thy cattle? [Scripture mentioned it] in order to liken cattle to the beast. As long as the wild beast is able to eat of [the produce of] the field, you may feed your cattle with that [which is stored] in the house; when food has disappeared for the wild beast in the field, remove it [what is stored] for your cattle from the house [and make it available to all animals alike].” This is Rashi’s language, taken from the Torath Kohanim.¹¹³Torath Kohanim, Behar 1:8.
The Rabbi [Rashi] did not, however, explain [the meaning of] this Removal. Its purport is that after a certain time the owner must remove all produce from his house and declare it ownerless [i.e., after food has disappeared for the wild beast from the field], this being “the Removal of the Seventh-year [produce]” which the Sages mention everywhere. Now the intention thereof is not that after the time of Removal it is forbidden for him to derive benefit from the produce or to eat, and that the owner must destroy it, for the Sages have not listed the fruits of the Seventh year in the Mishnah¹¹⁴Temurah 33 b. among those things that must be burnt, nor among those that must be buried. Rather, [the meaning of the Removal] is only that he must remove them from his control, and declare them free for the poor and for all people, similar to that which it says, I have put away the hallowed things out of my house¹¹⁵Deuteronomy 26:13. [in which case it obviously does not mean that he destroys the hallowed things, but rather that he gives them to whomever they belong, e.g. the heave-offering to the priest, etc.]. And so we have been taught in a Mishnah:¹¹⁶Shevi’ith 9:8. “The poor may eat [of the produce] after the Removal, but not the rich. These are the words of Rabbi Yehudah. Rabbi Yosei says: Both the poor and the rich may eat of the produce after the Removal.” The meaning of the term “the poor” is all people who gather the produce of fields of other people which have been declared ownerless, and “the rich” means the owners of the fields themselves, who gathered the produce of their own fields after they declared them free for all. Now Rabbi Yehudah declared that they [these “rich” former owners] are forbidden by law of the Rabbis to gather in from their own fields, on account of suspicion [that they did not really intend to make their fields free for all], but Rabbi Yosei permitted them [to gather in from their own fields], and the final decision of the law is according to his words. This Mishnah is also found in the Torah Kohanim.¹¹⁷Torath Kohanim, Behar 1:6.
And in the Tosephta it is stated:¹¹⁸Tosephta Shevi’ith 8:1-4. On “Tosephta” see above in Seder Tazria, Note 124. “Originally messengers of the court would go around the entrances of the cities; if anyone had brought the produce [of the Seventh year] into his possession, they would take it from him and give him enough food for three meals, and the rest they would put into a store-house in the city. When the time of [the ripening of] figs came, the court’s messengers would hire workers to pick them, and they would make them into cakes of pressed figs [and then put them into the store-house in the city]. When the time [of the ripening] of olives came, the court’s messengers would hire workers to harvest them, press them in olive-presses and put [the oil] into barrels, and then they would put them into the store-house in the city. When the time of [the ripening of] grapes came, the court’s messengers would hire workers to gather them, press them in a wine-press and put [the wine] into barrels, and they would put them into the store-house in the city. On the day preceding the [weekly] Sabbath they would distribute the food from them [the store-houses] to each and every one according to the needs of his family. When the time of the Removal arrived, the poor would eat after the Removal, but not the rich. These are the words of Rabbi Yehudah. Rabbi Yosei says: Both poor and rich may eat after the Removal. Rabbi Shimon says: The rich may eat from the store-house after the Removal.¹¹⁹For with respect to the store-house, all people are regarded as “poor,” but an owner of a field may not eat of his own fruits after the Removal. Rabbi Shimon’s teaching is thus a sort of middle position between that of Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Yosei. [When the time of the Removal came] he who had produce to distribute gave it to the poor. If someone had produce of the Seventh year [and he lived in a place where there was no store-house, nor a functioning court to supervise the distribution], and the time of Removal was come, he would distribute some of it to his neighbors, relatives and friends, and [the remainder] he would take out and place at the door of his house, and say: ‘Brethren, house of Israel! Whoever has to take, let him come and take!’ And then he may bring [the rest] back into his house and continue to eat of it until it is finished.”
All this is taught in the Tosephta, and from it we clearly learn that the term “Removal” only means that [the Seventh-year produce] must be taken out of the owner’s possession, and that he must declare it free for all, and that [for the fulfillment of this law] the Rabbis made various ordinances. Originally the court used to make a store-house in each and every city. As soon as the fruits ripened, they would take them from those who brought them [from their fields] and put them into the store-house. Thus when the time of the harvest for the whole of that crop would arrive, such as when the time had come for reaping the grain or gathering the grapes, the [messengers of the] court would hire workers to gather the grapes, pick the olives and harvest the whole of that species, and then they would press the grapes in a wine-press and the olives in an olive-press as one does during any other year, and put them into their store-house. Now this produce which was gathered into the store-house of the court required no other act of “Removal,” since they were already removed from the homes [of their owners], and both poor and rich were permitted after the time of the Removal to come and receive them from the court’s messengers, and to eat them. All this ordinance and trouble taken by the court was on account of suspicion, that [if the court were not to act in this manner] people would hold on to it [the produce of the Seventh year] or do business with it. And where there was no store-house in the city, nor a [functioning] court, and the produce remained in the hands of he who gathered it in from ownerless property, then he must remove it from his house when the time of Removal comes, and declare it free for all at the door of his house, and from then on he is permitted to continue eating from it [as long as it lasts]. This is [what the Rabbis meant in saying¹²⁰Nedarim 58 a. that] Seventh-year produce renders forbidden [a mixture] of its own kind in the smallest of quantities as far as the Removal is concerned,¹²¹Thus if a person took an onion which grew in the sixth year [of the Sabbatical cycle] and replanted it in the seventh year, even though it only grows a small amount in the seventh year the whole onion is subject to the law of Removal, as if it had grown entirely in the seventh year. Normally any forbidden food which becomes unrecognizable in a mixture the majority of which consists of permitted food, is considered negligible and “annulled” by the majority according to the law of the Torah [however, the Rabbis usually required a ratio of 60:1, for the forbidden food to become annulled]. However, any forbidden food which will at some future time have a permitted status, can never become annulled even if it is a minute part of the permitted part of the mixture; for why should we annul it now when it will eventually become permitted automatically? Here too, since the minute forbidden part of the onion which grew in the seventh year will automatically become permitted to be eaten when the owner declares it free for all at the time of Removal, it does not become annulled by the rest of the onion. Thus the whole of the onion is subject to the law of Removal [since we do not know which is the bit which grew in the seventh year]; and if the owner does not declare it free for all, it is completely forbidden. Ramban quotes this to prove that Removal does not mean destruction of the produce, but merely declaring it free for all, as the Gemara clearly states that it becomes permitted after Removal. as is mentioned in Tractate Nedarim,¹²⁰Nedarim 58 a. because it may be rendered permissible by removal from his house.
Now I have found the following comment of Rashi which he wrote in Tractate Pesachim:¹²²Pesachim 58 a. “And it is this which constitutes their ‘removal’ — that he is to make them free for all in a place where human beings and animals tread.” Perhaps the Rabbi thought that the owner has to make it free also for beasts and cattle, in order to fulfill that which is written concerning them, that the poor of thy people may eat, [and what they leave the beast of the field shall eat];¹²³Exodus 23:11. and for thy cattle, and for the beasts that are in thy Land [shall all the increase thereof be for food].¹²⁴Verse 7 before us. In this he [Rashi] has stated the matter too strongly, for [as we explain it] eating of the produce [after the Removal] is not prohibited at all. And the Rabbis have already taught in the Tosephta that the Removal of the [produce of the] Seventh year is like the removal [mentioned] in connection with the Second Tithe¹¹⁵Deuteronomy 26:13., and there is no difference between them as far as prohibition of eating them [for just as the Second Tithe is eaten, so the Seventh-year produce may be eaten].
Now Rabbi Moshe [ben Maimon]¹²⁵Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Sh’mitah V’yoveil 7:3. and many of the Sages¹²⁶Such as Rabad (Rabbi Abraham ben David of Posqieres) who agrees with Rambam on this point (Keseph Mishneh ibid.). are, however, of the opinion that the Removal renders the produce completely forbidden, and it must be burnt, or spread about and scattered in the wind, or thrown into the sea. But it is not so, as has been explained. If, however, he retained it in his home after the [time for the] Removal so that he may eat thereof, then it does become completely forbidden as food. This is the Seventh-year produce which renders [a mixture of a different kind] forbidden, [but only] if it is enough to give [the entire mixture] its flavor, since it has no permitted status [after the Removal; and therefore if the Seventh-year produce is not enough to give its flavor into the entire mixture, it becomes “annulled” by the majority of permitted food, but if it is enough to give it its flavor, it is not annulled].¹²⁷See Note 121 above. It is possible that this prohibition is [only] by law of the Rabbis; perhaps even the whole matter of Removal is a stringency imposed by the Scribes, and the Beraithoth taught in the Torath Kohanim on the subject of Removal are only Scriptural supports for a matter which is of Rabbinic origin.
On this basis the following Mishnah can be well-explained:¹²⁸Shevi’ith 9:5. “If one pickles three kinds of vegetables [of Seventh-year produce] in a single barrel etc.”¹²⁹“Rabbi Eliezer says: they may be eaten only as long as the first [to ripen of the three kinds] remains in the field. Rabbi Yehoshua says: Even until the last [to ripen of the three kinds] remains in the field, etc.” Ramban intends to say that if, as mentioned above, the whole law of Removal of Seventh-year produce is only a decree of Rabbinic origin, we may well understand why Rabbi Yehoshua is lenient in this case. — See also Ramban further on in Verse 12 where he quotes this whole text from the Torath Kohanim, and it is more fully explained. Similarly [we may well understand] the following Mishnah:¹³⁰Ibid., 6:1. “Three countries are to be distinguished as regards the Seventh year.” There we are taught: “Throughout that part of the Land of Israel which those that came up from Babylon occupied, as far as Chezib,¹³¹This is the city of Achzib, mentioned in Joshua 19:29, and Judges 1:31. It was in the vicinity of Acco, as is clear from the verse in the Book of Judges (Tifereth Yisrael). To understand this Mishnah it is important to remember that the sanctity first imparted to the Land of Israel by Joshua’s conquests came to an end with the destruction of the First Temple. Now when the Jews returned from the Babylonian exile and reoccuppied the Land, their settlement was not as large as that originally occupied by those that came up from Egypt. The sanctity imparted to this part of the Land which was re-occupied by the Babylonian exiles was never lost again; and it is to this part that the laws of the Seventh year fully apply. [Seventh-year produce] may not be eaten [without Removal], and [the land] may not be cultivated. Throughout that part of the Land which those that came up from Egypt occupied [but which was not later occupied by those that came up from the Babylonian captivity], from Chezib¹³⁰Ibid., 6:1. to the river¹³²I.e., the Brook of Egypt (Joshua 15:47) in the south (Tifereth Shlomoh). and [from Chezib] to Amanah,¹³³I.e. Mount Hor (Numbers 34:7) to the north. The Mishnah thus covers two points from Chezib: from the south thereof to the Brook of Egypt, and from the north thereof to Mount Hor (Tifereth Shlomoh). [Seventh-year produce] may be eaten [without Removal], but [the land] may not be cultivated.” Thus the Sages were more lenient as regards eating [the Seventh-year produce] after the time of Removal [without having gone through the actual act of Removal] than they were as regards cultivating [the land].¹³⁴As suggested above by Ramban, the reason for this leniency concerning Removal may be that the whole matter is of Rabbinic origin. And in the Yerushalmi it is mentioned:¹³⁵Yerushalmi Shevi’ith, end of Chapter 9. “A certain person who was suspected of [breaking the law of] Seventh-year produce said to his wife, ‘Separate the dough-offering [from the dough].’ Thereupon she said to him, ‘That person [i.e., you] is suspected of breaking the law of Seventh-year produce, and he tells me to separate the dough-offering!’ He said to her, ‘The dough-offering is a matter of Scriptural law; the law of the Seventh-year produce was ordained by the Rabbis, Rabban Gamaliel and his colleagues.’” That unworthy man was suspected of retaining produce of the Seventh year and eating it after the [time of] Removal, and he said that the prohibition of eating tevel¹³⁶See above in Seder Emor, Note 108. is a law of the Torah, but the Removal and the prohibition of eating Seventh-year produce after the Removal was ordained by Rabban Gamaliel and his colleagues. Or it may be that [he meant that although] the Removal itself is by law of the Torah, the prohibition of eating from the produce after the [time of] Removal [if one did not fulfill the law of Removal] is by law of the Rabbis — and he was only particular not to eat that which is forbidden by the Torah. Now since the Sages have mentioned the words of this person, it would seem that they are correct [inasmuch as that the prohibition against eating produce after the Removal, was enacted only by the Rabbis, as explained above]. Or perhaps [this is no indication that such is the accepted opinion of the law, because it may be] that this wicked person relied upon the [unaccepted] opinion of Rabbi Shimon¹³⁷Moed Katan 2 b. In other words, this was why the Talmud Yerushalmi quoted the words of this man. In our editions of the Gemara, the version is “Rabbi” [the editor of the Mishnah] instead of Rabbi Shimon. who says: “Scripture speaks of two kinds of release [the release of land and the release of money],”¹³⁸Deuteronomy 15:2: And this is the manner of the ‘release:' every creditor shall ‘release’ that which he hath lent unto his neighbor. The double use of the term “release” indicates that Scripture speaks here of two kinds of release: the release of the land in the Sabbatical year, and the release of monetary debts, and Scripture likens one to another to teach us the following: “At a time the release of the land is in force the release of money is obligatory, but at a time when the release of the land is not in force, the release of money is not obligatory.” And since Rabbi Shimon speaks of “a time when the release of the Land is not obligatory,” he must be referring to the time after the destruction of the Second Temple. (Rashi, Moed Katan 2 b). Thus it is clear that Rabbi Shimon is of the opinion that the law of the Seventh-year produce nowadays is of Rabbinic enactment. and the law of the Seventh-year nowadays is of Rabbinic authority, although the law of removing the dough-offering [in the Land of Israel] is of the Torah.

Since you are obligated to feed it. Nachalas Yaakov explains as follows: Because the verse is permitting the [Sabbatical year’s] fruits even to non-Jews, domesticated animals and beasts, even though the fruits are holy, it would be more logical to permit them [only] to a domesticated animal which is a mitzvah to feed since it belongs to you and you are obligated to feed it, unlike the beast [which you are not obliged to feed]. [Therefore Rashi is answering the question]: If so, why does the verse need to say “for your domesticated animals”? This answers the question of Re’em, see there.

Put at an end (to that stored) for your domesticated animal [removing it] from the house. I.e., you must remove whatever fruit you gathered for your domesticated animals from the house when they those [fruits] are gone no longer [growing] infrom the field [and no longer available] for wild beasts. And one has to make ownerless all the Sabbatical fruit that he had gathered into the house.