משנה: כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם אֲסוּרִין מִלִּזְרוֹעַ וּמִלְּקַיֵים וַאֲסוּרִין בְּהַנָּאָה. כִּלְאֵי זְרָעִים אֲסוּרִין מִלִּזְרוֹעַ וּמִלְּקַיֵים וּמוּתָּרִין בַּאֲכִילָה וְכָל שֶׁכֵּן בְּהַנָּאָה. כִּלְאֵי בְגָדִים מוּתָּרִין בְּכָל דָּבָר וְאֵינָן אֲסוּרִין אֶלָּא מִלִּלְבּוֹשׁ. כִּלְאֵי בְהֵמָה מוּתָּרִין לְגַדֵּל וּלְקַיֵים וְאֵינָן אֲסוּרִין אֶלָּא מִלְּהַרְבִּיעַ. כִּלְאֵי בְהֵמָה אֲסוּרִין זֶה עִם זֶה. MISHNAH: Kilaim in a vineyard are forbidden to be sown or kept and are forbidden for any use. Kilaim of grains are forbidden to be sown or kept but are permitted for eating and certainly for use. Kilaim of textiles are permitted for everything; they are only forbidden to be worn. Kilaim of animals may be raised and kept; they are only forbidden to be mated. Kilaim of animals are forbidden [to be mated] with one another1Since a mule is part horse and part donkey, mating of two mules implies double mating of parts of horse with parts of donkey and is forbidden for human intervention..
הלכה: כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם אֲסוּרִין כו׳. כְּתִיב לֹא תִזְרַע כַּרְמְךָ כִּלְאַיִם. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא הַזּוֹרֵעַ מְקַיֵים מְנַיִין תַּלמוּד לוֹמַר וְכֶרֶם וְלֹא כִלְאַיִם. מַה כְרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה דְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר הַמְקַיֵים עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא הַכֹּל מוֹדִים בָּאָסוּר שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר בְּשֶׁלֹּא קִיֵים עַל יְדֵי מַעֲשֶׂה אֲבָל אִם קִיֵים עַל יְדֵי מַעֲשֶׂה לוֹקֶה. כְּהָדָא דְתַנֵּי הַמְחַפֶּה בְּכִלְאַיִם לוֹקֶה. HALAKHAH: “Kilaim in a vineyard are forbidden,” etc. It is written (Deut. 22:9): “Do not sow kilaim in your vineyard.” Not only sowing, how about keeping? The verse says, vineyard and no kilaim2Cf. Chapter 7, Note 44. The parallel to this argument is in Sifra Qedošim 2(18) [Babli Mo‘ed Qaṭan 2b, Avodah Zarah 64a, Makkot 21b]: (Lev. 19:19): “ ‘Your field you should sow no kilaim.’ Not only sowing, how about keeping? The verse says, no kilaim, I told you only because of kilaim.” This argument covers grains, vegetables, and vines. However, the same verse also mentions kilaim of animals and textiles in similar language and these may be kept in the opinion of the Mishnah. It follows that a derivation based on the verse Lev. 19:19 has to be rejected and only an argument parallel to that in Chapter 7 is acceptable.. Does this follow Rebbi Aqiba, for Rebbi Aqiba said that he who keeps [kilaim] transgresses a prohibition3“Prohibition” usually refers to a criminal offense. “Forbidden” refers to a moral obligation. Since the statement of R. Aqiba in Tosephta Kilaim 1:15 deals with kilaim of seeds (grains and vegetables), he cannot imply that passively keeping kilaim is prosecutable as a criminal offense. However, in the Babli (Mo‘ed Qaṭan 2b, Avodah Zarah 64a), R. Aqiba is quoted in a baraita to the effect that keeping kilaim is a criminal offense. This forces Rashi and the other commentators to conclude that “keeping” here means “fencing in” or a similar activity. (Rashi to Mo‘ed Qaṭan 2 is lost; the commentary is in Avodah Zarah.) The Yerushalmi has no such difficulty.? Rebbi Yose said, it is the word of everybody. Everybody agrees that what is forbidden is forbidden if he did not preserve through an action, but if he preserved through an action he is whipped, as it is stated: He who covers kilaim is whipped.
מְנַיִין שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָיה נֶאֱמַר כָּאן פֶּן תִּקְדַּשׁ וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן פֶּן תּוּקְדָּשׁ בּוֹ מַה פֶּן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָיה אַף פֶּן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּאן אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָיה. וְאִית דְּבָעֵי מֵימַר נֶאֱמַר כָּאן פֶּן תִּקְדַּשׁ וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן וְלֹא יִהְיֶה קָדֵשׁ מִבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. מַה קדש הָאָמוּר לְהַלָּן אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָיה אַף כָּאן אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָיה. וְקָדֵשׁ אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָיה. אָמַר רִבִּי חוּנָה בִּיאָתוֹ אֲסוּרָה בַּהֲנָיָיה. אִית דִּבְעֵי נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא דְּאָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינַא פֶּן תִּקְדַּשׁ פֶּן תּוּקַּד בָּאֵשׁ. From where that it is forbidden for any use? It is said here (Deut. 22:9) “lest you sanctify it” and it is said elsewhere (lest it become sanctified by it)4There is no such verse in the entire Hebrew Bible. It is the consensus of the commentators that it should read פן תנקש (Deut. 12:30) “lest you be caught”, speaking of idolatrous objects that must be destroyed and every use of which is explicitly forbidden. One applies the principle that words in the Pentateuch have one invariable meaning; if that meaning is spelled out at one place, it can be transferred to any other occurrence of the same word.. Since “lest” there means it is forbidden for any use, “lest” here means it is forbidden for all use. Some want to say, it is said here “lest you sanctify it” and it is said at another place “there shall be no qadeš among the Israelites.” Since qdš there means forbidden for any use, so qdš here must mean forbidden for any use. Rebbi Huna said, his sex act is forbidden for all use5The qadeš is the Semitic male temple prostitute. In the Talmudim, the notion which had become obsolete at that time was extended to all sexual relations of persons who could not legally marry one another, such as the relation between a slave and a free woman, or of a free Jew and a slave girl or a Gentile. Since the woman could not hope to be married, she could have no gain from the sex act; any pleasure she might have is strictly forbidden.. Some want to understand it from the following, as Rebbi Ḥanina said, “lest you sanctify it”, lest fire should be kindled6The same argument is in Babli Qiddušin 56b, Ḥulin 115a in the name of Ḥizqiah. No Tannaitic source proposes to change the text from תקדש to תקד אש..”
כְּתִיב לֹא תִזְרַע כַּרְמְךָ כִּלְאַיִם. מְלַמֵּד שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָיב עַד שֶׁיִּזְרַע שְׁנֵי מִינִין בַּכֶּרֶם דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה רִבִּי יוֹנָתָן אָמַר אֲפִילוּ מִין אֶחָד. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹנָתָן כְּתִיב שָׂדְךָ לֹא תִזְרַע כִּלְאַיִם לְאֵי זֶה דָּבָר נֶאֱמַר לֹא תִזְרַע כַּרְמְךָ כִּלְאָיִם. חֲבֵרַיָיא אָמְרִין לְהַחֲמִיר עָלָיו אֲפִילוּ מִין אֶחָד. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה שָׂדְךָ לֹא תִזְרַע כִּלְאַיִם לְאֵי זֶה דָּבָר נֶאֱמַר לֹא תִזְרַע כַּרְמְךָ כִּלְאָיִם. חֲבֵרַיָיא אָמְרִין לְהַתְרַיָיה שֶׁאִם הִתְרוּ בוֹ מִשּׁוּם שָׂדְךָ לוֹקֶה. מִשּׁוּם כַּרְמְךָ לוֹקֶה. אָמַר רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיא לִיתֵּן לוֹ שִׁיעוּר אֲחֶרֶת מִן שִׁשָּׁה טְפָחִים. וְכָן אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת. מַה נָן קַיָימִין אִם בְּשֶׁעָשָׂה גֶדֶר מִבִּפְנִים בָּטֵל הַכֶּרֶם. אִם בְּשֶׁעָשָׂה גֶדֶר מִבְּחוּץ זֶהוּ הַמָּחוֹל. אֶלָּא כֵּן נָן קַיָימִין בְּשָׂדֶה שֶׁהָיָה שָׁם שְׂדֵה תְבוּאָה וְהִקְרִיחַ לְתוֹכָהּ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת. וְאַתְיָא כִּדְאָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָה אֵין הָאוֹסֵר נַעֲשֶׂה מְחִיצָה לְהַצִּיל. סָבְרִין מֵימַר אוֹסֵר נַעֲשֶׂה מְחִיצָה לֵיאָסֵר. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִי יוֹנָתָן כְּתִיב שָׂדְךָ לֹא תִזְרַע כִּלְאַיִם לְאֵי זֶה דָּבָר נֶאֱמַר לֹא תִזְרַע כַּרְמְךָ כִּלְאָיִם. כְּהִיא דְּאָמַר רִבִּי הֵילָא הֵן דְּאַתְּ אָמַר לֹא אָמַרְתְּ לְמָה אַתְּ אָמַר. אוֹ כְּהִיא דְּאָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא לֹא תִזְרַע כַּרְמְךָ כִּלְאַיִם עִיקַּר כַּרְמְךָ כִּלְאַיִם לֹא תִזְרַע. It is written (Deut. 22:9): “Do not sow kilaim in your vineyard.” This teaches us that one is not guilty unless he sows two kinds in the vineyard, the words of Rebbi Josia8The Hebrew text לא תזרע כרמך כלאים is somewhat ambiguous. One may translate “do not sow kilaim in your vineyard” or “do not sow your vineyard as kilaim.” R. Josia chooses the first possibility, R. Jonathan the second. There is no question that the verse of Deut. contains the rule of sanctification that does not apply to the situation of the verse in Lev:, the question is why the second verse does not refer to the first.. Rebbi Jonathan said, even one kind. In the opinion of Rebbi Jonathan it is written (Lev. 19:19) “in your field do not sow kilaim”, why does it say “do not sow kilaim in your vineyard”? The colleagues say, to make it sinful even with one kind. In the opinion of Rebbi Josia, “in your field do not sow kilaim”; why does it say “do not sow kilaim in your vineyard”? The colleagues say, as a warning. If he was warned about “your field”, he is whipped, if he was warned about “your vineyard”, he is whipped9In talmudic legal theory, a verdict of guilty cannot be pronounced unless criminal intent was shown by the testimony of two witnesses. The standard way of proving intent is the testimony that the perpetrator was warned not to commit such and such an act because it is forbidden in the Torah and that therefore he committed the act in the knowledge of its illegality. The prohibition must be specified. In our case, since sowing something in a vineyard turns the vineyard into a field, either of the verses may be used. This almost impossible standard of proof is needed only in order to convict somebody under biblical law which knows only flogging and the death penalty; it does not have to be strictly adhered to for convictions under police powers for which the punishment is jailtime.. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, to give another measure besides six hand-breadths; here it is four cubits10Conviction for sowing kilaim in an enclosed field (and single vines considered as fields) is possible only if a minimal distance of six hand-breadths was not observed; cf. Halakhah 1:9. Four cubits is the minimum distance for an enclosed vineyard. The existence of two different verses is a precondition to the establishment of two different legal standards.. What are we talking about11One tries to clarify the statement of R. Abun bar Ḥiyya. If the field is not enclosed, no minimum separation is required but only clear geometric shapes. If the field is enclosed either the enclosure passes through the vineyard, in which case there is no legal vineyard, or it encloses the vineyard, in which case the more stringent rules of the circumference apply (Mishnah 4:1). The only possibility is that the field itself is the enclosure, that a spot was cleared inside the field containing a four-by-four square, to be used for planting an illegal vineyard.? If he made a fence on the inside, the vineyard is abolished. If he made a fence on the outside, that is the circumference. But we deal with a field that was a grain field and he cleared four cubits in its midst. This agrees with what Rebbi Ḥanina said, nothing forbidden may form a separation to save. They were of the opinion that what is forbidden does form a separation to prohibit12This is explained in Chapter Four, Note 28.. In the opinion of Rebbi Jonathan it is written (Lev. 19:19): “In your field do not sow kilaim”, why does it say: “Do not sow kilaim in your vineyard”13According to R. Abun bar Ḥiyya, why does R. Jonathan use the verse to declare that somebody can be convicted of a biblical crime by sowing one foreign kind in a vineyard since the verses are needed to establish two different standards? This question is not a repetition of the one asked at the start of this paragraph.? For that which Rebbi Hila said, if you would say [the Torah] did not say it, what would you say14Since the verse is needed first for the more stringent standard and then for the problem of sanctification, it is impossible to think that it should not have been written.? Or following what Rebbi Zeïra said, “do not sow your vineyard kilaim,” creating your vineyard do not sow kilaim.15He takes the verse literally, “do not sow your vineyard as kilaim”, not, as we would think, that “do not sow” refers to a preexisting vineyard which usually is planted, not sown. The only transgression that can be punished by biblical standards, i. e., whipping, is creating a vineyard as kilaim, sowing while the planted vines take root.
רִבִּי יוּדָן קַפּוֹדָקִיָּא בָּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי תַּמָּן אַתְּ אָמַר אֵין זַרְעֵי אִילָן קְרוּיִין זְרָעִים. וְהָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר זַרְעֵי אִילָן קְרוּיִין זְרָעִים. אָמַר לֵיהּ תַּמָּן מִיעֵט הַכָּתוּב אֶת שֶׁאֵין דֶּרֶךְ בְּנֵי אָדָם לִהְיוֹת קוֹרִין זְרָעִים. בְּרַם הָכָא רִיבָה הַכָּתוּב עַל כָּל זֶרַע זֵרוּעַ אֲשֶׁר יִזָּרֵעַ. Rebbi Yudan from Kappadokia asked before Rebbi Yose: There they say that tree seeds are called seeds but here you say that tree seeds are not called seeds. He said to him: There the verse excluded them since usually people do not call them “seeds,” but here the verse added (Lev. 11:37) “any sown seed that may be sown.”16The text is from Tractate Peah, Halakhah 1:4, and is explained there in Notes 252–253. “There” is here, Tractate Kilaim, “here” is in Peah. No tree seeds form kilaim with grain and vegetables except grape seeds.
אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּאי הַמְחַפֶּה בְּכִלְאַיִם לוֹקֶה. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְלָאו מַתְנִיתָא הִיא כִּלְאַיִם בַּכֶּרֶם אֵיךְ אֶיפְשַׁר כִּלְאַיִם עַל יְדֵי חֲרִישָׁה לֹא בִמְחַפֶּה. וַהֲוָה רִבִּי יַנַּיי מְקַלֵּס לֵיהּ הַזָּלִים זָהָב מִכִּיס וגו׳. בְּנִי אַל יָלוּזוּ מֵעֵינֶיךָ תֵּן לְחָכָם וְיֶחְכַּם עוֹד יִשְׁמַע חָכָם וְיוֹסִיף לֶקַח. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ בָּתַר כָּל אִילֵּין קִילּוּסַיָּא יְכִיל אֲנָא פָּתַר לָהּ כְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה דְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אָמַר הַמְקַיֵים עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. כְּלוּם אָמַר רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אֶלָּא לַעֲבוֹר שֶׁמָּא לִלְקוֹת. וְהָכָא לִלְקוֹת אֲנָן קַיָימִין. וְעוֹד מִן הָדָא דְתַנִּינָן שְׁבִיעִית אִית לָךְ מֵימַר שְׁבִיעִית דְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. פָּתַר לָהּ שְׁבִיעִית דְּרִבִּי לָעְזָר דְּרִבִּי לָעְזָר אָמַר לוֹקִין עַל יְדֵי חֲרִישָׁה בַשְּׁבִיעִית. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר אֵין לוֹקִין עַל יְדֵי חֲרִישָׁה בַשְּׁבִיעִית. מַה טַעַם דְּרִבִּי לָעְזָר וְשָׁבְתָה הָאָרֶץ שַׁבָּת לַיי כְּלָל. שָׂדְךָ לֹא תִזְרָע וְכַַרְמְךָ לֹא תִזְמוֹר פְּרָט. הַזֶּרַע וְהַזֶּמֶר בִּכְלָל הָיוּ וְלָמָּה יָצְאוּ לְהַקִּישׁ אֵלֶיהֶן וְלוֹמַר לָךְ מַה זֶרַע וְזֶמֶר מְיוּחָד שֶׁהֵן עֲבוֹדָה בָאָרֶץ וּבְאִילָן אַף כָּל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא עֲבוֹדָה בָאָרֶץ וּבְאִילָן. מַה עֲבַד לָהּ רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. שְׁנֵי דְבָרִים הֵן וּשְׁנֵי דְבָרִים יָצְאוּ מִן הַכְּלָל חוֹלְקִין. וְלֵית לֵיהּ לְרִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר חוֹלְקִין. אִית לֵיהּ לַחֲלוֹק אֵינָן חוֹלְקִין הָא לְלַמֵּד מְלַמְּדִין. וְלֵית לֵיהּ לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מְלַמְּדִין. שַׁנְיָיא הִיא שֶׁהַכְּלָל בַּעֲשֵׂה וּפְרָט בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה אֵין עֲשֵׂה מְלַמֵּד עַל לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה וְאֵין לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה מְלַמֵּד עַל עֲשֵׂה. Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: He who covers kilaim is whipped. Rebbi Joḥanan said to him: Is that not a Mishnah? “Kilaim in a vineyard.” How are kilaim possible by ploughing17Since a standard vineyard is planted with four cubits between vines and rows, there is no space for a plough which needs four cubits on each side. Hence, anything sown has to be sown on the unploughed earth and then covered; the verse calls covering seeds with earth “sowing”.? It must be by covering! Rebbi Yannai praised him (Is. 46:6:) “Those who pour out gold from the wallet, etc.” (Prov. 3:21) “My son, they should not be removed from your eyes,” (Prov. 9:9) “give to the wise that he shall become wiser,” let the wise listen18In the verse: “inform the just”. “that he increase in knowledge.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, after all these praises I can explain it following Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Aqiba said that he who keeps [kilaim] transgresses a prohibition. Rebbi Aqiba said only that he transgresses, did he say to whip? Here we are dealing with whipping. Further, from what we have stated “Sabbatical year19According to R. Eleazar, everybody agrees that ploughing in the Sabbatical year is a criminal offense, while according to R. Joḥanan everybody agrees that ploughing in the Sabbatical year is not a criminal offense. There is no way to single out R. Aqiba’s opinion..” Can you say that the Sabbatical year follows Rebbi Aqiba? Explain the Sabbatical year following Rebbi Eleazar, as Rebbi Eleazar said, one whips because of ploughing in the Sabbatical. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one does not whip because of ploughing in the Sabbatical. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar? (Lev. 25:2) “The Land should keep a Sabbath for the Eternal,” a general statement. (Lev. 25:4) “Your field you should not sow, your vineyard you should not prune,” detail. Sowing and trimming were in the general statement, why were they detailed? To trap with them and to tell you that just as sowing and pruning are particular as agricultural work on the earth or on a tree, so everything that is agricultural work on the earth or on a tree [is forbidden]20The Babylonian version of this argument is in Babli Mo‘ed Qaṭan 3a, a tannaïtic version in Sifra Behar 1. [Cf. Sanhedrin 7:5, reference from Addenda and Corrigenda by Guggenehimer] A comparison with the Babli should use only manuscripts or early editions; the current versions have been corrupted by editors, cf. Diqduqe Sopherim ad loc. The relevant verses are Lev. 25:2–5: “(2) Speak to the Children of Israel and tell them, when you shall come to the Land which I am giving you, the Land shall rest for a Sabbath of the Eternal. (3) Six years you shall sow your field, six years you shall prune your vineyard and eat its yield. (4) But in the Seventh year, the Land shall have a Sabbath of rest; do not sow your field, do not prune your vineyard. (5) Your harvest’s aftergrowth you shall not harvest, the grapes of your wild growth you shall not gather, a year of rest shall be for the Land.” One’s first impulse would be to consider verses (4) and (5) as a unit, following the rule known as כלל ופרט וכלל (the seventh rule of R. Ismael, Sifra introduction) that details flanked by general statements have to be taken as examples, rather than for themselves, and that all activities forbidden are those described by the intersection of the intensional definitions of the examples. This interpretation led the later editors of the Babli astray. The problem is that verse 4 by itself seems to have the structure כלל ופרט, a general statement followed by a particular one, which would imply that the particular statement is to be taken literally; nothing is covered by the general statement that is not covered by the particular one. This forces the Babli to conclude that even R. Eleazar agrees with the principle [anonymous in the Yerushalmi, attributed to R. Ilaï (Hila, La) in the Babli] that a positive general statement and a negative particular one cannot form a unit. {The inverse statement, that a negative general statement and a positive particular one must be considered as unrelated, is an anonymous remark in Babli Yebamot7a.}
If the first and the second parts of verse 4 have no direct connection, the question arises (in the formulation of Sifra Behar) whether one could think that all work is forbidden in the Seventh Year, including building roads and repairing aqueducts. The second part of the verse describes what is really forbidden. The second rule invoked here by R. Eleazar is heqqēš“trapping”, meaning that a rule exemplified by different cases applies to all cases subsumed under the intersection of the intensional definitions of the examples. Everybody agrees that a rule exemplified by three different examples only applies to these three and nothing else, and a rule exemplified by one example applies to everything similar unless restricted, e. g., by the use of a definite article. A rule exemplified by two examples is problematic; some think these are examples only if they appear at different places and some hold that for illustration of a general rule the examples must appear in the same verse. This is the basis of the following disagreement between R. Eleazar and R. Joḥanan. (For the meaning of all these rules, cf. H. Guggenheimer, Logical Problems in Jewish Tradition, in: Ph. Longworth, ed., Confrontations with Judaism, London 1966.). How does Rebbi Joḥanan deal with this? They are two things and two things that are specified from a general notion divide21The examples are separate; they cannot be used in heqqēš.. Does Rebbi Eleazar not hold that they divide? He holds that they do not divide but instruct. Does Rebbi Joḥanan not hold that they instruct? It is different here because the general statement is a positive commandment and the details are prohibitions; no positive commandment implies anything for a prohibition and no prohibition implies anything for a positive commandment.
עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן נִיחָא מוּתָּר לַחְפּוֹר בָּהּ בּוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי לָעְזָר מַהוּ לַחְפּוֹר בָּהּ בּוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֵינָן מְלַמְּדִין לְעִנְיַין אִיסוּר כָּךְ לְעִנְיַין הֵיתֵר לֹא יְלַמְּדוּ. According to R. Joḥanan it is obvious that one is permitted to dig in it22The Sabbatical year. If ploughing is permitted, digging certainly is. cisterns, ditches, and caves. According to R. Eleazar, may one dig in it cisterns, ditches, and caves? If the verses have no implication for prohibition they cannot have implications for permission23The question is asked the wrong way: If R. Joḥanan asserts that two examples together do not prove anything, they cannot prove that something is permitted. On the other hand, R. Eleazar (following Sifra Behar) only prohibits work on the field and in the vineyard, certainly not digging ditches..
אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא קַרְתִּיגֵנַיָיא טַעַם דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים תִּזְרַע שָׂדֶךָ לֹא בַשְּׁבִיעִית וְשֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים תִּזְמוֹר כַּרְמֶךָ לֹא בַשְּׁבִיעִית. כָּל לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁהוּא בָּא מִכֹּחַ עֲשֵׂה עֲשֵׂה הוּא וְעוֹבֵר בַּעֲשֵׂה. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר עוֹבֵר בַּעֲשֵׂה. רִבִּי יוֹסָה אָמַר אֲפִילוּ עֲשֵׂה אֵין בּוֹ לֵיידֶא מִילָּה כְּתִיב וְשָׁבְתָה הָאָרֶץ שַׁבָּת לַיי. לְעִנְיַין לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁבּוֹ. Rebbi Abba from Carthage said, the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan is (Lev. 25:3): “Six years you shall sow your field”, not in the Seventh, “six years you shall prune your vineyard,” not in the Seventh. Every prohibition derived from a positive commandment is a positive commandment; he transgresses a positive commandment24In the opinion of R. Abba from Carthage, R. Joḥanan only asserted that ploughing is not overstepping a formal prohibition. For him, ploughing is still forbidden but the prohibition is not one of criminal law since it is formulated in a positive way.. Rebbi Jeremiah said, he transgresses a positive commandment. Rebbi Yasa said, there is not even a positive commandment! Why is it written (Lev. 25:2): “the Land shall rest for a Sabbath of the Eternal?” For the prohibitions in it25He (R. Assi) sticks with the prior explanation that two simultaneous examples do not imply heqqeš; “the prohibitions in it” are the two prohibitions spelled out in the verse..
יָכוֹל יְהוֹ לוֹקִין עַל הַתּוֹסָפוֹת שֶׁבּוֹ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן פָּתַר מַתְנִיתָא יָכוֹל יְהוּ לוֹקִין עַל חֲרִישָׁה בַשְּׁבִיעִית. רִבִּי לָעְזָר פָּתַר מַתְנִיתָא יָכוֹל יְהוּ לוֹקִין עַל אִיסּוּר שְׁנֵי פְרָקִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים תִּזְרַע שָׂדֶךָ וְשֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים תִּזְמוֹר כַּרְמֶךָ. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי שָׂדְךָ לֹא תִזְרָע וְכַרְמְךָ לֹא תִזְמוֹר. מָאן דְּאָמַר שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים תִּזְרַע שָׂדֶךָ וְשֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים תִּזְמוֹר כַּרְמֶךָ מְסַיְיעָא לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מָאן דְּאָמַר שָׂדְךָ לֹא תִזְרָע וְכַרְמְךָ לֹא תִּזְמֹר מְסַיְיעָא לְרִבִּי לָעְזָר. “I could think one would whip because of the additions.26This is a quote from a baraita; a similar one, also quoted in two separate pieces, is in Babli Mo‘ed Qaṭan 3b. A baraita starting with “I could think that …” always ends with showing that it is not so. The “additions” are prohibitions not explicitly stated in the Pentateuch.” Rebbi Joḥanan explains the baraita, I could think that one would whip because of ploughing in the Sabbatical. Rebbi Eleazar explains the baraita, I could think that one would whip because of the prohibition of the first two terms27The prohibition to work after the harvest of the year preceding the Sabbatical, two different terms, one for fields and one for orchards (Ševi‘it 1:1,2:1). These regulations have purely rabbinical character; the Biblical prohibition extends only to a short time before New Year’s Day. R. Eleazar will agree that even transgression of the latter prohibition is not punishable in court but the expression “two terms” is inappropriate since it refers to rabbinical extensions.. Some Tannaïm state (Lev. 25:3): “Six years you shall sow your field, six years you shall prune your vineyard.” Some Tannaïm state (Lev. 25:4) “Your field you should not sow, your vineyard you should not prune.” He who states: “Six years you shall sow your field, six years you shall prune your vineyard,” supports Rebbi Joḥanan. He who states: “Your field you should not sow, your vineyard you should not prune,” supports Rebbi Eleazar28The implications of these verses for the positions of the authors have been explained in the previous paragraphs..
מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי לָעְזָר הִשָּׁמֵר לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. וּכְתִיב שָׁם תַּעֲלֶה שָׁם תַּעֲשֶׂה. בְּגִין דִּכְתִיב הָא אִילּוּ לֹא כְתִיב עֲשֵׂה הוּא. שֶׁלֹּא תֹאמַר כְּמַה דְתֵימָר גַּבֵּי שַׁבָּת חָפַר חָרַץ נָעַץ אֵינוֹ חַיָיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. וְדִכְוָותָהּ שָׁחַט זָרַק וְהֶעֱלָה לֹא יְהֵא חַיָיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. לְפוּם כֵּן צָרַךְ מֵימַר חַיָיב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar29The baraita is preserved in Sifry Deut. 70–71, on the verses (Deut. 12–13): “Guard yourself not to present your burnt offerings at every place you see. Only at the place which the Eternal will choose from one of your tribes, there you should present your burnt offerings and there you should perform all that I am commanding you.” The first verse contains a prohibition, the second a positive commandment and because of this difference, the verses cannot be taken together in the way R. Eleazar interpreted a similar situation regarding the Sabbatical year. Hence, R. Eleazar seems to contradict tannaïtic attitudes. Since in our sources R. Eleazar’s interpretation of the verses Lev. 25:2–5 is found in Sifra, one may take this as an indication that Sifra was unknown to the compilers of the Yerushalmi, and that Sifra is a Babylonian compilation of tannaïtic material as is traditionally asserted.. “ ‘Guard yourself’ means a prohibition. And it is written: There you should present, there you should perform.” Because that is written, otherwise I would have said it is a positive commandment30Verses 13–14 show that sacrificing outside the precincts of the Tabernacle or the Temple is a criminal offense (v. 13) and a disregard of a positive injunction (v. 14). The two verses are parallel, not logically consecutive as R. Eleazar would require.. But that you should not say as you say regarding the Sabbath that if somebody dug a hole, made a ditch, and dug to put in a pole, he is guilty only of one offense, so similarly, if somebody slaughtered, sprinkled the blood, and presented he should be guilty only of one offense31An argument is given that R. Eleazar could justify the different treatment of an apparently similar situation.
The Sabbath prohibitions are classified under 39 categories of “main works”. An action similar to one of the main works is called a derivative. For example, ploughing as a preparation for sowing and digging a hole for the planting of a tree are main work and derivative respectively. If somebody performed both a main work and one of its derivatives in error, he has to bring one sacrifice of atonement. But if he transgressed prohibitions belonging to two distinct categories, he has to bring two sacrifices. In the case of sacrifices outside the Temple, presenting the sacrifice on the altar is really the last action; it is preceded first by the slaughter of the sacrificial animal and second by the sprinkling of its blood on the walls of the altar. These actions are classified as “performing”. Since the order of the actions is inverted, first “presenting” then “acting”, it follows that they are distinct and that slaughter and sprinkling are not legally derivatives of presenting. {In the Sifry, the interpretation is that the prohibition covers only those actions that are simultaneously a criminal offense and a disregard of a positive injunction.}. Therefore, it is necessary to say that he is guilty for each action separately.
רִבִּי זְעִירָא רַב חִיָיא בַּר אַשִּׁי בְשֵׁם כֲּהָנָא הַנּוֹטֵעַ בַּשַּׁבָּת חַיָיב מִשּׁוּם זוֹרֵעַ. רִבִּי זְעִירָא אָמַר הַזּוֹמֵר כְּנוֹטֵעַ. נָטַע וְזָמַר בַּשַּׁבָּת עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דַכֲהָנָא חַיָיב שְׁתַּיִם. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי זְעִירָא אֵינוֹ חַיָיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. כְּלוּם אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא אֶלָּא הַזּוֹמֵר כְּנוֹטֵעַ שֶׁמָּא הַנּוֹטֵעַ כְּזוֹמֵר. הַכֹּל הָיָה בִּכְלָל זְרִיעָה יָצָאת זְמִירָה לְהַחֲמִיר עַל עַצְמָהּ. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיָּצָאת זְמִירָה לְהַחֲמִיר עַל עַצְמָהּ אַתְּ פּוֹטְרוֹ מִשּׁוּם זוֹרֵעַ הֲוֵי לֹא שַׁנְיָיא בֵּין עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דַכֲהָנָא בֵּין עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי זְעִירָא חַיָיב שְׁתַּיִם. Rebbi Zeïra, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Cahana33Since Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi was among the older students of Rav, Cahana mentioned here cannot be the one who went to study under R. Joḥanan but must be an older Sage (Cahana I) who already was a recognized authority when Rav returned from Galilee to Babylonia.: He who is planting on the Sabbath is guilty because of sowing34Sowing is the category, planting a derivative.. Rebbi Zeïra said, he who prunes is like one who plants. If he planted and pruned on the Sabbath, according to Cahana he is guilty on two counts, according to Rebbi Zeïra only on one count. Did not Rebbi Zeïra say the pruner is like the planter, did he say the planter is like the pruner35Pruning is a subcategory of sowing concerning the Sabbath just as planting is, but planting is not like pruning for the Sabbatical year since planting belongs to sowing.? All was included in the notion of sowing; pruning was singled out for particular stringency36Following the argument made for the Sabbath, it would not have been necessary to have pruning singled out in the laws of the Sabbatical. Since it is obvious that for the Sabbatical, pruning is a separate offense, pruning can be a subcategory of sowing for the Sabbath only as a stringency, not a leniency.. Because pruning was singled out for particular stringency you want to exempt it because of sowing? There is no difference, both according to Cahana and according to Rebbi Zeïra he is guilty on two counts.