Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Moed Katan, 4

1) LEARNING ONE HALACHAH FROM BOTH A VERSE AND A HALACHAH L'MOSHE MI'SINAI

QUESTION: Rebbi Akiva derives from the verse, "be'Charish uva'Katzir Tishbos" -- "You shall cease from all plowing and reaping" (Shemos 34:21), the law of Tosefes Shevi'is, refraining from working the land for some time even before the seventh year begins and after it ends. The Gemara questions why Rebbi Akiva needs a verse to teach Tosefes Shevi'is, when the law of Tosefes Shevi'is is already taught by a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai. The Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai of "Eser Neti'os" states that it is permitted to plow beneath young, new plantlings under certain circumstances up until Rosh Hashanah of the seventh year, which implies that it is prohibited -- because of Tosefes Shevi'is -- to plow beneath full grown plants even before Rosh Hashanah arrives. Why, then, does Rebbi Akiva need a verse to teach the law of Tosefes Shevi'is, asks the Gemara.

What is the Gemara's question? It is true that we would know Tosefes Shevi'is from the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai. However, if it were only for that source, the laws of Tosefes Shevi'is would not have a status of a law written explicitly in the Torah, but a status of a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai, which differs from an explicitly written law! The RAMBAM (Perush ha'Mishnayos, Mikva'os 6:7) says that a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai, even though it is mid'Oraisa, is considered "Divrei Sofrim" and one may be lenient in the case of a doubt. Accordingly, the Torah teaches certain Halachos explicitly, even though they were taught as a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai, in order to give it the status of a law written explicitly in the Torah. That is why the verse teaches the law of Tosefes Shevi'is even though it is a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai! What, then, is the Gemara asking?

The Gemara (Temurah 18a) itself gives this reasoning. The Gemara says that even though there is a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai teaching that a Temurah of an Asham may not be offered as a Korban, a verse is needed to teach that one transgresses a Mitzvas Aseh if he actually offers it. (MATZEVES MOSHE)

ANSWER: The MATZEVES MOSHE answers that the Gemara means as follows. We find in many places that the Gemara says that when there are two ways to understand a verse, and one of those ways would give a second Isur Lav for something that we already know is prohibited, we prefer *not* to learn the verse to be giving a second Lav (Pesachim 24b, Bechoros 6b). Even though the second Lav will add another set of Malkus, if there is already an Isur Lav for the act, it is more logical to say that the verse is teaching a new Halachah rather than just making the pre-existing Isur stronger by adding another Lav.

The Gemara's question here on Rebbi Akiva is based on this principle. The verse, "You shall cease from all plowing and reaping," could be understood in one of two ways -- referring to the laws of Shevi'is, or referring to the laws of Shabbos (as Rebbi Yishmael understands it). Rebbi Akiva learns that the verse is teaching Tosefes Shevi'is, which is an Isur that we already know from the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai. Since Rebbi Akiva could have learned the verse in another way -- that it is teaching that Ketzirah which is a Mitzvah (cutting the grain for the Omer offering) is permitted on Shabbos, like Rebbi Yishmael learns the verse, why did he choose to learn that it is teaching a law that we already know, and just adding more severity to the Isur of Tosefes Shevi'is? It would have been preferable for him to learn the verse as teaching an entirely new Halachah!

(See also next Insight, quoting the NACHLAS DAVID, for another approach)

QUESTION: The Gemara concludes that only Rebbi Yishmael uses the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai as the source for Tosefes Shevi'is. Rebbi Akiva, though, derives the obligation of Tosefes Shevi'is from a verse and not from a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai. According to Rebbi Akiva, there is no such Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai.

While it is true that Rebbi Akiva does not need the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai to teach the obligation of Tosefes Shevi'is, he should still need it to teach the leniency of Eser Neti'os -- to teach that the requirement to refrain from working the land before the Shevi'is year begins does not apply to a field of young plantlings, which may be plowed until Rosh Hashanah of Shevi'is! Does Rebbi Akiva maintain that there is no such leniency? It does not seem that he argues with it, since the Mishnah in Shevi'is (1:6) states it explicitly and mentions no one who argues. Moreover, the Mishnah in Shevi'is (1:8) actually records the opinion of Rebbi Akiva in a discussion about how to differentiate between a Neti'ah, a young plantling, and an Ilan, a mature tree! If Rebbi Akiva maintains that there is no leniency for Neti'os, but that they have the same Halachah as mature trees, then why is he discussing the definition of a Neti'ah? (TUREI EVEN, Rosh Hashanah 9a)

ANSWERS:

(a) The RASHASH (Shevi'is 1:6) answers that Rebbi Akiva indeed argues with the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai of Eser Neti'os; according to Rebbi Akiva, there is no allowance to plow a field of young trees up until Rosh Hashanah of Shevi'is. Why, then, does Rebbi Akiva in the Mishnah there (1:8) discuss the difference between a Neti'ah and an Ilan, if they both have the same Halachah?

The Rashash points out that the RAMBAM there (Perush ha'Mishnayos) explains that Rebbi Akiva describes the difference between a Neti'ah and an Ilan because it is relevant to a different Halachah. The Mishnah in the beginning of Shevi'is (1:1) states that a "Sdeh Ilan," a field of mature trees, may be plowed during the year before Shevi'is only up until Shavuos (according to Beis Hillel). The Mishnah (1:2) then defines a Sdeh Ilan as a field that has "three trees per Beis Se'ah." If the field has less than three trees per Beis Se'ah, it is not a Sdeh Ilan and may be plowed only until Pesach and not until Shavuos. Likewise, the Rambam says, if the trees in the field are not mature trees, but young plantlings (Neti'os), it is not a Sdeh Ilan and may be plowed only until Pesach and not Shavuos. Only if the field contains *ten* Neti'os is it considered a Sdeh Ilan which may be plowed until Shavuos. Because of this Halachah, it is necessary to know the difference between a Neti'ah and an Ilan, says the Rambam.

The Rambam is saying that there is a *stringency* associated with Neti'os (being limited to plowing them only until Pesach), and not a leniency (such as being permitted to plow them until Rosh Hashanah)! REBBI AKIVA EIGER (in the Mishnayos) there asks how does the Rambam know that there is a Chumra associated with Neti'os? The Mishnah there says only that there is a Kula (the allowance to plow a field of Eser Neti'os until Rosh Hashanah)! Also, even if there is such a Chumra related to Neti'os, why didn't the Rambam bring the *main* difference between Neti'os and Ilanos; that we are more *lenient* with Neti'os, and we may plow them until Rosh Hashanah!

The Rashash answers that the Rambam inferred that there must be another Halachah associated with Neti'os from the fact that Rebbi Akiva gives a definition of a Neti'ah. Why would Rebbi Akiva -- who does not hold of the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai and the Kula of Eser Neti'os -- discuss what a Neti'ah is if it is not relevant to any Halachah? It must be that there is some other Halachah for which we need to know what a Neti'ah is. The Halachah that a Sdeh Ilan may be plowed until Shavuos during the year before Shevi'is is d'Rabanan; the Rabanan determined how much work is needed by how many and which type of trees or plants. They determined that a field with three mature trees needs to be worked until Shavuos, while a field with less than that needs only to be worked until Pesach. Rebbi Akiva certainly does not argue with this Halachah d'Rabanan, as it has nothing to do with the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai. Therefore, the Rambam explains that when Rebbi Akiva discusses what a Neti'ah is, he is referring to the Chumra associated with Neti'os. (The CHAZON ISH in Shevi'is 17:12 offers a similar answer for the Turei Even's question.)

(b) The CHAZON ISH (Shevi'is 17:12), though, considers this approach to be somewhat forced, because we still find no Tana who argues with the explicit Mishnah that states unequivocally that a field of Eser Neti'os may be plowed until Rosh Hashanah of Shevi'is.

The Chazon Ish therefore suggests that perhaps Rebbi Akiva agrees with the Kula of Eser Neti'os, but not because of the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai, but rather for the following reason. Even though Rebbi Akiva derives the obligation of Tosefes Shevi'is from the verse, "be'Charish uva'Katzir Tishbos" -- "You shall cease from all plowing and reaping" (Shemos 34:21), that verse does not say *how much* time before Shevi'is one must refrain from working the land. It must be, therefore, that the Torah gave the right to the Chachamim to determine how much time before Shevi'is one must refrain from working the land. Similarly, they determined that the Torah did not include a field with Eser Neti'os in its Isur of Tosefes Shevi'is, and it is permitted to plow such a field up until Rosh Hashanah of Shevi'is.

(c) The NACHALAS DAVID suggests that Rebbi Akiva indeed accepts the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai. When the Gemara says that Rebbi Akiva derives the obligation of Tosefes Shevi'is from a verse while Rebbi Yishmael learns it from the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai, it does not mean that Rebbi Akiva derives it *only* from the verse. Rather, it means that Rebbi Akiva holds that we would have derived the obligation of Tosefes Shevi'is from a verse even if we had no Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai.

Why, then, do we need a verse to teach us Tosefes Shevi'is if we would have known it from a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai (as the Gemara itself asks)? The Nachalas David says that this is not a question, because the Gemara in Rosh Hashanah (9a) says that even Rebbi Yishmael, who certainly holds of the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai, also requires a verse to teach that Tosefes Shevi'is is Asur! TOSFOS there (DH v'Rebbi Yishmael) explains why Rebbi Yishmael needs a verse if he learns the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai. Tosfos says that if we have the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai alone, we would not be able to learn the obligation of Tosefes *Shabbos* and Tosefes *Yom Tov* from Tosefes Shevi'is, because "we do not derive other laws from a law taught by a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai." So, too, says the Nachalas David, Rebbi Akiva needs a verse in addition to the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai in order to teach that Shabbos and Yom Tov have a Halachah of Tosefes, just like Shevi'is. (Tosfos explains why the Gemara here does not use this logic to answer its question on Rebbi Akiva, but the Nachalas David does not accept Tosfos' arguments, and asserts that our Gemara indeed *does* mean to use this logic to explain the opinion of Rebbi Akiva.)

OPINIONS: The Mishnah (2a) states that we may not water a field with rainwater (that is, from rainwater that collected in a pit) during Chol ha'Mo'ed. The Gemara records an argument regarding the reason for this prohibition. Rebbi Ila'a, in the name of Rebbi Yochanan, says that it is because of a Gezeirah: if one is permitted to use rainwater to water his field, he might assume that it is permitted to use water from a cistern (Mei Kilon) as well (because both are sources of *collected* water). Only spring water (which is not collected water but water springing from a natural source) may be used. Water from a cistern, in turn, may not be used because drawing it with a bucket on a pole ("Kilon") involves excessive exertion (Tircha).

Rav Ashi argues and says that the reason rainwater may not be used to water a field is because the pit full of rainwater will become like a cistern itself. When the rainwater is drawn from the pit, the water level drops and eventually it will require excessive exertion (a bucket attached to a pole) to lift up the water from the pit, effectively falling into the category of cistern. Therefore, it is prohibited to use rainwater, because it is included in the same prohibition as water of a cistern.

The Gemara says that their argument depends on whether or not each one accepts the ruling of Rebbi Zeira. Rebbi Zeira said that it is permitted to water fields from rivers that draw their water from swamps. In what way is this ruling of Rebbi Zeira related to the argument between Rebbi Yochanan and Rav Ashi?

(a) RASHI (Ksav Yad), the RITVA and others explain that when Rebbi Yochanan says that rainwater is prohibited because of a Gezeirah lest one use water of a cistern, he is expressing a more stringent view than Rav Ashi. Rebbi Yochanan holds that even a pit of rainwater which will remain perpetually full (because it has a constant supply of rain), may not be used for watering a field on Chol ha'Mo'ed because of the Gezeirah. This view is in disagreement with the ruling of Rebbi Zeira, because when Rebbi Zeira says that rivers that come from swamps may be used to water fields, the Gemara concludes that this is because the swamp has a constant supply of water and will not dry up. Since it will not dry up, it will never become like a cistern and thus it is permitted. According to Rebbi Yochnanan, though, it does not matter if the swamp has a perpetual supply of water; he holds that since it is coming from collected water (that comes from rain) and not from an underground spring, it is prohibited because of a Gezeirah lest one think it is permitted to use water of a cistern.

The NACHLAS DAVID points out that this is the intention of RASHI (DH Rebbi Ila'a) in our Gemara as well. However, the words of Rashi are confusing, because two comments of Rashi are printed in the wrong place, earlier than they are supposed to appear. The comments of Rashi in DH Naharos and in DH Mutar belong *after* DH Rebbi Ila'a, and they are explaining Rebbi Yirmiyah's question to Rebbi Zeira in the next stage of the Sugya.

(b) RABEINU CHANANEL explains that at this point in the Sugya, the Gemara assumes that when Rebbi Zeira discusses rivers coming from swamps, he is discussing swamps that *might* run out of water, and yet he still permits watering fields from such rivers. This is counter to Rav Ashi's opinion, for Rav Ashi prohibits watering a field from a rainwater-pit, lest it become a cistern by running out of water. Accordingly, Rav Ashi would also prohibit watering a field from a river whose source of water might dry up. Rebbi Yochanan's opinion, though, conforms with Rebbi Zeira's ruling. Even though Rebbi Yochanan maintains that the Rabanan enacted a Gezeirah not to water a field with rainwater, nevertheless this Gezeirah does not apply to a river that draws its water from swamps. The reason why Rebbi Yochanan does not apply the Gezeirah to rivers that come from swamps is because he maintains that the Gezeirah is only applicable where one must take out the water with a bucket (such as from a pit of collected rainwater). Where one does not need to take out water with a bucket (such as from a river, which brings the water directly to the field), the Gezeirah does not apply.

However, in the next stage of the Gemara (when Rebbi Zeira responds to Rebbi Yirmiyah's question), the Gemara concludes that Rav Zeira only permitted the swamps if they do *not* dry up. According to this conclusion, even Rav Ashi agrees with Rebbi Zeira, since there is no fear that the swamp will dry up and become like a cistern, creating a situation where excessive Tircha is necessary in order to get the water.

4b