Moed Katan — Daf 3a

תולדות לא אסר רחמנא דכתיב (ויקרא כה, ד) ובשנה השביעית שבת שבתון יהיה לארץ שדך לא תזרע וגו'

מכדי זמירה בכלל זריעה ובצירה בכלל קצירה למאי הלכתא כתבינהו רחמנא

למימרא דאהני תולדות מיחייב אאחרנייתא לא מיחייב

ולא והתניא שדך לא תזרע וכרמך לא תזמור אין לי אלא זירוע וזימור מנין לניכוש ולעידור ולכיסוח ת"ל שדך לא כרמך לא לא כל מלאכה שבשדך ולא כל מלאכה שבכרמך

מנין שאין מקרסמין ואין מזרדין ואין מפסגין באילן ת"ל שדך לא כרמך לא לא כל מלאכה שבשדך ולא כל מלאכה שבכרמך

מנין שאין מזבלין ואין מפרקין ואין מאבקין ואין מעשנין באילן ת"ל שדך לא כרמך לא כל מלאכה שבשדך לא וכל מלאכה שבכרמך לא

יכול לא יקשקש תחת הזיתים ולא יעדר תחת הגפנים ולא ימלא נקעים מים ולא יעשה עוגיות לגפנים ת"ל שדך לא תזרע

זריעה בכלל היתה ולמה יצתה להקיש אליה לומר לך מה זריעה מיוחדת עבודה שבשדה ושבכרם אף כל שהיא עבודה שבשדה ושבכרם

מדרבנן וקרא אסמכתא בעלמא

וקשקוש בשביעית מי שרי והא כתיב (שמות כג, יא) והשביעית תשמטנה ונטשתה תשמטנה מלקשקש ונטשתה מלסקל

אמר רב עוקבא בר חמא תרי קשקושי הוו חד אברויי אילני וחד סתומי פילי אברויי אילן אסור סתומי פילי שרי

איתמר החורש בשביעית ר' יוחנן ור' אלעזר חד אמר לוקה וחד אמר אינו לוקה לימא בדר' אבין אמר רבי אילעא קמיפלגי דאמר רבי אבין אמר ר' אילעא כל מקום שנאמר כלל בעשה ופרט בלא תעשה אין דנין אותו בכלל ופרט וכלל

מאן דאמר לוקה לית ליה דרבי אבין אמר רבי אילעא

ומאן דאמר אינו לוקה אית ליה דר' אבין

לא דכולי עלמא לית ליה דרבי אבין אמר ר' אילעא מאן דאמר לוקה שפיר

ומאן דאמר אינו לוקה אמר לך מכדי זמירה בכלל זריעה ובצירה בכלל קצירה למאי הלכתא כתבינהו רחמנא למימר דאהני תולדות הוא דמיחייב אתולדה אחרינא לא מיחייב

ולא והתניא שדך לא תזרע וכרמך לא תזמור אין לי אלא זירוע וזימור מנין לעידור ולקישקוש ולכיסוח ת"ל שדך לא כרמך לא לא כל מלאכה שבשדך ולא כל מלאכה שבכרמך

ומנין שאין מקרסמין ואין מזרדין ואין מפסגין באילן ת"ל שדך לא כרמך לא כל מלאכה שבשדך לא כל מלאכה שבכרמך לא

מנין שאין מזבלין ואין מפרקין ואין מעשנין באילן ת"ל שדך לא כרמך לא כל מלאכה שבשדך לא וכל מלאכה שבכרמך לא

יכול לא יקשקש תחת הזיתים ולא יעדר תחת הגפנים ולא ימלא נקעים מים ולא יעשה עוגיות לגפנים תלמוד לומר שדך לא תזרע

זריעה בכלל היתה ולמה יצתה להקיש אליה לומר לך מה זריעה מיוחדת עבודה שבשדה ושבכרם אף כל שהיא עבודה שבשדה ושבכרם

מדרבנן וקרא אסמכתא בעלמא

but derivative1 operations it has not forbidden, for it is written: But in the seventh year shall be a sabbath of solemn rest for the land..., thou shalt neither sow thy field nor prune thy vineyard. That which groweth of itself of thy harvest thou shalt not reap and the grapes of thy undressed vine thou shalt not gather.2 Now, since pruning comes within the general process of sowing3 and grape-gathering within the general process of reaping,4 what law then did the All-Merciful desire to inculcate by inserting these [secondary processes] into the text? To indicate that only for these secondary processes [specified in the text] is one [to be] held liable5 and for [any] other [secondary processes] one is not [to be] held liable.6 Indeed not? Surely it has been taught: Thou shalt neither sow thy field nor prune thy vineyard,7 that only forbids me sowing or pruning; whence is forbidden weeding or hoeing or the trimming of wilted parts? From the instructive [form of the] text: Thy field thou shalt not... thy vineyard thou shalt not . . . [which means] no manner of work in thy field; no manner of work in thy vineyard. [Likewise] whence [is derived the rule] not to cut back shoots, or thin twigs or put up props for supporting [fruit trees]? From the [same] instructive text: Thy field thou shalt not . . . thy vineyard thou shalt not . . . [which means] no manner of work in thy field, no manner of work in thy vineyard. [Similarly] whence [is derived the rule] not to manure,8 or remove stones, or dust [with flower of sulphur]9 or fumigate the tree? From the instructive wording of the text: Thy field thou shalt not . . . thy vineyard thou shalt not, that is, no manner of work in the field, no manner of work in the vineyard. Shall I say that one should not [even] stir the soil under the olive trees, nor use the hoe under the vines, nor fill the gaps [under the olive trees]10 with water nor make drills11 for the vines? There is the Instructive wording of the text: Thy field thou shalt not sow [nor thy vineyard shalt thou prune]. Now, as ‘sowing’ was already embraced in the general terms of the ordinance,12 why then was it singled out [for mention]? To provide ground for an analogy, namely that just as sowing has the special quality of being a work common to field and orchard,13 so is every [other] work that is common to field and orchard [forbidden]!14 — [That is only] Rabbinically; and the text is adduced merely as a support.15 But, is it permitted to stir the soil [under the olive tree] in the sabbatical year? Surely [is it not taught]: It is written, But the seventh year thou shalt let it rest and lie fallow;16 ‘let it rest’ — not to hoe; and ‘[let it] lie fallow — not to remove stones? — Said R. ‘Ukba b. Haba, there are two sorts of hoeing, one for strengthening the [olive] tree, and another to close up fissures; that for strengthening the tree is forbidden, whereas that for closing up fissures is allowed.17 It has been stated:18 — If one ploughed in the sabbatical year,19 R. Johanan and R. Eleazar20 [took opposite views]. One said that he is flogged21 and the other said that he is not flogged.22 Might I suggest that the issue turns on the dictum of R. Ela as reported by R. Abin? For R. Abin reported R. Ela to have stated that wherever a general [proposition] is stated in the form of a positive command and a particular [specification] in the form of a negative injunction,23 the hermeneutical rule of General-Particular-General24 does not apply to it.25 [Accordingly], the one who says the offender is flogged, did not agree with that dictum of R. Abin in the name of R. Ela,26 while the other who says that the offender is not flogged did agree with the dictum of R. Abin [in the name of R. Ela]?27 — Not [necessarily]. It can be maintained that nobody agrees with the dictum of R. Ela, as reported by R. Abin. As to the one who says that the offender is flogged28 it of course is in order, while the other who says the offender is not flogged may tell you thus:29 Consider: pruning comes within [the general process of] sowing and grape-gathering within [the general process of] reaping, what rule did the All-Merciful intend to inculcate by inserting these [secondary processes] into the text? To indicate that only for these secondary processes [specified in the text] is one [to be] held liable, but for any other secondary process30 he is not [to be] held liable. But is he not? Surely it is taught: Thou shalt neither sow thy field nor prune thy vineyard, this only forbids me sowing or pruning; whence is forbidden weeding, hoeing, or the trimming of wilted parts? From the instructive [form of] the text: Thy field thou shalt not . . . thy vineyard thou shalt not . . . [which means] no manner of work in thy field; no manner of work in thy vineyard. Whence [is derived the rule] not to cut back shoots, or thin twigs or put up props for [fruit] trees? From the [same] instructive text: thy field thou shalt not ...thy vineyard thou shalt not . . . [which means] no manner of work in thy field, no manner of work in thy vineyard. Whence [is derived the rule] not to manure, or remove stones, [or dust] or fumigate the trees? From the instructive text: Thy field thou shalt not . . . thy vineyard thou shalt not . . . [that is], no manner of work in thy field, no manner of work in thy vineyard. Am I then to say that one may not stir the soil under the olive trees, nor use the hoe under the vines, nor fill the [open] gaps [under the olives] with water, nor make drills for the vines? There is the instructive wording of the text: Thy field thou shalt not sow and thy vineyard thou shalt not prune. Now, sowing was already embraced in the general terms of the ordinance, why then was it singled out [for mention]? For the purpose of providing [ground for] an analogy, that just as sowing has the special quality of being a work common to field and vineyard, so is any other work that is common to field and orchard [forbidden]? — [That is only] rabbinically; and the text is [adduced] as a mere support.31 exposed roots. The context seems to favour the first explanation here adopted. ordinarily be filled with manure and olive trees need much water. Cf. Sheb. IV, 5, and Sifra Behar Rabad's Commentary. contrast to verse 3; there was therefore no further need to continue with specific instances of the prohibition, such as sowing the field and pruning the vineyard. teaching shows that a number of processes though of the secondary type are forbidden in the sabbatical year). inclusion of ploughing, digging, hoeing or watering in the prohibition is purely Rabbinic. Thus the ruling of the Mishnah that an irrigated field may be watered . . . in the sabbatical year has now been explained: by Abaye on the basis of Rabbi's view, namely, that the restrictions of the sabbatical year are not operative nowadays; and, on the other hand by Raba, on the view of the other Rabbis (who do not concede Rabbi's interpretation of Deut. XV, 2), by pointing out that ‘watering’ is, strictly speaking, not textually forbidden, it being a ‘derivative’ (secondary) process, and hence allowed by the Rabbis in the sabbatical year where damage (loss of crop) is likely. rotting. be given. Lord. Six years thou shalt sow . . . prune . . . gather in the produce thereof, but the seventh year shall be a sabbath of solemn rest unto the Lord (cf. Ex. XXIII,11); then follow the particulars in negative terms. Thou shalt neither sow thy field, nor prune thy vineyard. That which groweth of itself thou shalt not reap and the grapes of thy undressed vines thou shalt not gather (Lev. XXV, 4-5). Then follows a general rule again in positive form: It shall be a year of solemn rest for the land. general rule all such items as are similar to the particulars. E.g. in Ex. XXII, 8 the text first states that an oath can be judicially imposed ‘for every matter of trespass’ (General term). This is followed by: ‘for ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment’ (particulars), which again is followed finally by: ‘for any manner of lost thing’ (General). We infer from this that an oath can be imposed for things like those specified as typical instances, but not in the case of a dispute about land, being immovable property, or in the case of sanctuary-property, as it being not one's neighbour's property, or in the case of dispute about a slave, as being a (human) chattel, or about documents, as not being ‘property’, but merely instruments of evidence. Similarly in the case of the sabbatical year,if the particulars are typical of the general rule, one who does any of these would break the law. general proposition does not go beyond what has actually been specified by the particularization that follows it. sowing, pruning, reaping and gleaning as typical illustrative instances and, accordingly, considers ‘ploughing’ as included in the general terms of the Ordinance and hence as a punishable offence. in the particulars, which amounts to saying, ‘Not a, not b, not c; these, I mean, precisely, and no others’. ‘Ploughing’ therefore is not included among the forbidden processes and hence is not a punishable offence. application of the General-Particular-General rule would indicate to the contrary.