MISHNAH: m.MQ.1.1b.MQ.2aAn irrigated field may be watered during the festival [week] or in the Sabbatical Year both from a newly-emerging spring and from a spring that is not just emerged, but not with water from stored rain, nor from a swipe-well; nor may small basins be formed about the vines.
MISHNAH: m.MQ.1.2R. Eleazar b. Azariah [T2] says that a [water] channel may not be newly made during the festival [week], nor in the Sabbatical Year; but the Sages say that a channel may be newly made in the Sabbatical Year and one that has got out of order may be repaired during the festival [week] and impaired water works in the public domain may be repaired or cleaned out; and roads, broadways and [ritual] pools may be put in order. And all public needs may be performed, and gravesides may be marked, and [public commissioners] may set out also to inspect diverse seed-crops.
GEMARA: Now, one might argue that after [having permitted] watering from a newly emerging spring which is apt to come along tearing up [the soil] need further mention be made of [drawing from] a spring that is not newly emerging- which is unlikely to come tearing up [the soil]? I may answer that it is necessary [to mention the latter]; for if [the Tanna] had mentioned only the newly emerging spring I might have said that only here [where it is] for an irrigation plot it is permitted but not for a Baal-plot, because it is apt to come tearing up [the soil]; but [on the other hand], from a spring that is not newly emerging, which is unlikely to come tearing up [the soil], I might say that even a Baal-plot [may be watered]; therefore he informs us that there is no difference; be it a spring newly emerging, or a spring not newly emerging, an irrigation plot may be watered therefrom, but a Baal-plot may not be. And whence [know we] that the term Beth Ha-shelahin denotes a `thirsty` field? It is written: When thou wast faint and weary, and we render the word `faint` [in Aramaic] by meshalhi. And whence [know we] that Beth ha-Baal denotes `settled` soil? It is written: For as a man be the husband [yib`al] of a maiden, so shall thy sons be as husbands unto thee and we render [in Aramaic], `Behold as a young man settles down with a maiden, thy sons shall become settled in the midst of thee`.
Who may be the [unnamed] Tanna who maintains that [work to prevent] loss is allowed, but [to augment] profit is not allowed; and that even in [averting] loss we should not do any laborious work? Said R. Huna [BA2 or PA4]: It is [the view of] R. Eliezer b. Jacob [T2 or T4], as we learned: R. Eliezer b. Jacob [T2 or T4] says: Water may be trained along from tree to tree, provided that one does not water thus the entire field. I grant you may understand R. Eliezer [T2 or T5] [b. Jacob] to disallow exertion to enhance profit, but could you also understand him [from here] to disallow exertion [even] where loss is [involved]? Rather, said R. Papa [BA5], (whose view is it)? It is R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y]`s, as it is taught: `A spring newly emerging may be [used for] watering even (a field that is) a Baal-plot. So R. Meir [T4]; R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y] says, None but (a field that is) a `languid plot` that has dried up may be watered [therefrom]. R. Eleazar [T4 in M or PA3] b. `Azariah says, Neither one nor the other. R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y] went even further and said, `A person may not clean out a water channel and [with the dredging] water his garden of debris [heap] during the festival week`. [Now] what is [meant by a `languid plot`] that dried up? If you say, literally dried up` what is the good of watering it? Said Abaye [BA4], It means that this [old] spring has run dry and another has [just] emerged [instead]. `R. Eleazar b. Azariah [T2] says, Neither one nor the other`. [By this he means to say that] it makes no difference whether the [old] spring has run dry or has not run dry, a newly emerging spring is not to be used. But how [do you arrive at this conclusion]? Perhaps when R.Judah said that a languid plot may be watered from a newly emerging spring and a Baal-plot may not be, b.MQ.2b he was referring only to a newly emerging spring since it may come along tearing up [the soil]; but a spring that is not just newly emerging and which is unlikely to come along tearing up [the soil] he might allow even for a Baal-plot? If [you take it] thus, then whom does our Mishnah represent? The fact is that according to R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y] it makes no difference, whether it be a newly emerging spring, or a spring not just newly emerging; in either case a languid plot may be watered [therefrom], but a Baal-plot may not be. And the reason why it states the `newly emerging` spring is [merely] to show how far R. Meir [T4] is prepared to go, [namely], that even a newly emerging spring may be used for watering and even for a Baal-field! It was stated: `If one is [seen] weeding or watering his seedlings on the Sabbath, under what category [of the offence] should he be cautioned? Rabbah [BA3] said, [It comes] under the category of ploughing. R. Joseph [BA3] said, under the category of sowing. Said Rabbah, My view seems the more reasonable, for what is the object of the plougher? To loosen the soil; here too, he loosens the soil. Said R. Joseph [BA3], My view seems the more reasonable, for what is the object of the sower? To promote the growth of the produce; here too, he promotes the growth of the produce. Said Abaye [BA4] to Rabbah, Your view presents difficulty and R. Joseph`s [BA3] view presents difficulty. Your view presents difficulty, for does the act come [only] under the category of ploughing [and] not under that of sowing [only]? R. Joseph`s [BA3] view presents difficulty, for does it come [only] under the category of sowing [and] not under that of ploughing also? And should you rejoin that where there are two [possible categories], the offender is liable only on one count, [this cannot be] for did not R. Kahana [BA1, PA2, BA3 or BA6] say that if one [incidentally] pruned [his tree] in cutting it for wood he is liable on two counts, one under the category of planting and one again under that of reaping? This is a difficulty. R. Joseph [BA3], thereupon, put an objection to Rabbah [BA3] from [the following]: One who weeds or covers [with earth] diverse-seeds receives [judicial] flogging. R. Akiba [T3] says, Also one who preserves [them]. Now this is in perfect accord with my view, as I say that [he who weeds is to be cautioned] under the category of sowing, which [explains the penalty] because sowing is [explicitly] forbidden in connection with diverse-seeds; but according to your view who say that [he is to be cautioned] under the category of ploughing, is ploughing forbidden in connection with diverse-seeds? Said he [Rabbah] to him, [He is flogged] under the category of preserving [them]. But surely, since the last clause states `R. Akiba [T3] says, Also one who preserves [them]`, may we not infer that according to the first Tanna the penalty is not on account of preserving [them]? The entire statement is [to be taken as] recording R. Akiba`s [T3] view, and the latter clause is explanatory: `On what ground does one who weeds or covers [with earth] diverse-seeds receive a flogging? Because he comes under the category of preserving, for R. Akiba [T3] says, Also he who preserves [them]`. What is R. Akiba`s [T3] reason? It is taught: Thou shalt not sow thy field with two kinds of seed`. This tells me about `sowing`, whence [the prohibition against] preserving [what is already sown]? From the instructive wording Kilayim [diverse-seeds] in thy field not. We learned: An irrigated field may be watered during the festival [week] or in the Sabbatical Year. This [permission] is perfectly correct in regard to the festival [week] where [the prohibition is] merely to avoid exertion, but where loss is [threatened] the Rabbis have allowed it. But in regard to the sabbatical year, whether on the view that [watering] comes under the category of sowing or on the view that it comes under that of ploughing, is either sowing or ploughing permitted in the sabbatical year? Said Abaye [BA4], Our Mishnah is speaking of the sabbatical year in the present time and it [expresses] the view held by Rabbi; for it is taught: Rabbi [T5] says, [It is written] And this is the manner of the release; release [by every creditor of that which he hath lent to his neighbour]; the text speaks here of two forms of release, one the release of the soil [from tillage] and the other the release of money [the juxtaposition of] which tells us that so long as you must release the soil [from tillage], you must release the money [debt], but when you do not release the soil, you need not release the money! Said Raba [BA4] [not necessarily], you may even say [it voices] the view of the Rabbis and that they are the principal [types of work] that the Divine Law has forbidden [explicitly], b.MQ.3a but derivative 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. Now, since pruning comes within the general process of sowing and grape-gathering within the general process of reaping, 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 liable and for [any] other [secondary processes] one is not [to be] held liable. Indeed not? Surely it has been taught: Thou shalt neither sow thy field nor prune thy vineyard, 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, or remove stones, or dust [with flower of sulphur] 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] with water nor make drills 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, 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, so is every [other] work that is common to field and orchard [forbidden]! [That is only] Rabbinically; and the text is adduced merely as a support. 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; `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. It has been stated: If one ploughed in the sabbatical year, R. Johanan [PA2] and R. Eleazar [T4 in M or PA3] [took opposite views]. One said that he is flogged and the other said that he is not flogged. Might I suggest that the issue turns on the dictum of R. Ela [PA3] as reported by R. Abin [PA3 or PA4]? For R. Abin [PA3 or PA4] reported R. Ela [PA3] 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, the hermeneutical rule of General-Particular-General does not apply to it. [Accordingly], the one who says the offender is flogged, did not agree with that dictum of R. Abin [PA3 or PA4] in the name of R. Ela [PA3], while the other who says that the offender is not flogged did agree with the dictum of R. Abin [PA3 or PA4] [in the name of R. Ela [PA3]]? Not [necessarily]. It can be maintained that nobody agrees with the dictum of R. Ela [PA3], as reported by R. Abin [PA3 or PA4]. As to the one who says that the offender is flogged it of course is in order, while the other who says the offender is not flogged may tell you thus: 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 process 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. b.MQ.3b When R. Dimi [BA5] came [from Palestine] he said [the discussion went on]: Possibly, you might say that the offender be flogged [even] for the `extension`? But the teaching was concluded to prove that he was exempt. But [said he], I know not which was the teaching, nor what was [actually] meant by `extension`.
R. Eleazar [T4 in M or PA3] [b. Pedath] said that the `extension` had reference to [the inclusion of] `ploughing` [as a punishable offence], and the argument proceeded thus: Possibly [you might say] that he should be flogged for `ploughing` [in the sabbatical year], the rule being inferred by [treating the sabbatical ordinance as a case of] General-Particular-General; then the teaching was concluded to prove exemption. For, if it [the flogging] were correct, what is the [legal] import of all those particulars [set out in the text]? R. Johanan [PA2] said [that the `extension` had reference to] the extra days [of restriction] which the sages had added prior to New Year; and the argument proceeded thus: Possibly [you might say] that he should be flogged for [ploughing during] the extended extra period prior to New Year which is based on the text: `In ploughing time and in reaping time thou shalt rest. Then the teaching was concluded to prove exemption [from a flogging], as we shall seek to explain presently. What is meant by `the days [of restriction] prior to New Year`? According to what we learned: `Up to what date may ploughing be done in a tree field [orchard] in the pre-sabbatical year? Beth Shammai [CE1] say, As long as it is for the benefit of the fruit; Beth Hillel [CE1] say, Up to the Feast of Weeks; and the [practical effect of] one ruling is much the same as that of the other. And up to what date may they plough a `white field` in the pre-sabbatical year? Up to when the moisture gives out and as long as people till for planting their cucumber and gourd beds. Said R. Simeon [T4], If that is so, you have handed over the Torah for every individual to determine for himself the right time! No: [I say], a `white field` [they may till] up to Passover and a tree field up to the Feast of Weeks`. (And Beth Hillel [CE1] say up to Passover.)
And R. Simeon b. Pazzi [PA3] reported in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi [PA1] who had it from Bar Kappara [T6] that Rabban Gamaliel [T1, T2 or T6] and his Beth din took a vote on these two [terminal] periods and abrogated them. Said R. Zera [PA3] to R. Abbahu [PA3], some say, Resh Lakish [PA2] said to R. Johanan [PA2]: How could Rabban Gamaliel [T1, T2 or T6] and his Beth din abrogate a measure instituted by Beth Shammai [CE1] and Beth Hillel [CE1]? Surely we learned: `No Beth din has power to nullify the words [ruling] of another Beth din unless it be superior to it in learning and number`! `He was astonished for a while`; then he replied: I say, they thus have stipulated among themselves that whoever might thereafter wish to abrogate that [measure] could come and abrogate it. But was it their measure? Was it not an [ancient] Halachah of Moses from Sinai? As [in fact] R. Assi [BA1 or PA3] reported R. Johanan [PA2] to have said in the name of R. Nehuniah a man hailing from the valley of Beth Hauran, that the [laws of] `Ten Saplings,` the `Willow` and the `Water Libation` were `Halachah` of Moses from Sinai! Said R. Isaac [T5 or PA3], When we received on tradition that law [of extra restriction] as [an ancient] Halachah, It was only in reference to `thirty days prior to the New Year`; thereafter came those [of Beth Shammai [CE1] and Hillel [BCE1]] and instituted [the cessation] from Passover and the Feast of Weeks, and [at the same time] they stipulated with reference to their [measure] that whoever might [thereafter] wish to abrogate [them] might come and abrogate them.
But were these [termini] merely Halachah [-usages]? Were they not [based on Biblical] texts? For is it not taught: [Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest]: in ploughing time and in reaping time thou shalt rest. Says R. Akiba [T3], There is no need to be told [in the second clause] to desist from ploughing or reaping in the seventh year, since it is already stated [elsewhere at length]: thou shalt neither sow thy field nor prune thy vineyard: [that which groweth of itself thou shalt not reap]. [It can be taken] only [to debar] ploughing in the pre-sabbatical year b.MQ.4a [which may have beneficial effects] extending into the seventh year and [likewise] to the reaping of the seventh year`s crops which mature in the post-sabbatical year. Says R. Ishmael [T3], [It is purely a Sabbath law]; as the ploughing [here forbidden on Sabbath] is optional ploughing, so is the reaping [here mentioned] optional reaping; outside this [law] is the reaping [of the new barley] for the `omer` which is a religious duty [by ordinance]! In fact said R. Nahman b. Isaac, when we received on tradition [that the pre-sabbatic restrictions had their origin in] Halachah [-usage], this had reference to the permission [of tilling for the benefit] of saplings; whereas the texts are for the prohibition of old trees. But since `Halachah [-usage] allowed [tillage down to New Year] for saplings, it is not obvious that old trees were forbidden? What we must say therefore is, the Halachah [-usage] as basis for the prohibition is [necessary] according to R. Ishmael [T3], whereas the texts [serve as basis] according to R. Akiba [T3]. But R. Johanan [PA2] said that Rabban Gamaliel [T1, T2 or T6] and his Beth din abrogated those [restrictions] on Biblical authority. What was the reason? He deduced it by equating the term `Sabbath` common to both the Sabbath-year and the Sabbath of Creation [thus]: Just as in the case of the Sabbath Day [work is forbidden] on the day itself, but on the day before and on the day after it is allowed, so [likewise] in the Sabbath Year [tillage is forbidden] during the year itself, but in the year before and in the year after it is allowed. To this R. Ashi [BA6] demurred: On the view that it [the restriction] is a Halachah [-usage] can a gezerah shawah [deduction] come and eradicate a Halachah [-usage]; and [likewise] on the view that it is [based on] a Biblical text, can a gezerah shawah come and eradicate a text! But no, said R. Ashi [BA6], Rabban Gamaliel [T1, T2 or T6] and his Beth din concurred with R. Ishmael [T3] who held that [the presabbatical restrictions] were based on a Halachah-usage. And when did the tradition of such Halachah-usage [apply]? During the time when the Temple was still standing, like that of the water libation; but in times when the Temple is no longer standing the tradition of this Halachah-usage does not apply. but it may not be watered from [stored] rain nor by that of a swipe-well. It is quite correct [to prohibit water] from a swipe-well, because that is a rather extra trouble; but rain water-what trouble is there [in using it]? Said R. Ela [PA3], reporting R. Johanan [PA2]: Rain water is prohibited as a precaution on account of the swipe-well. R. Ashi [BA6] said: Rain water itself may [sometimes] come to be [just as difficult to draw as] the water of a swipe-well. And they differ on [the statement of] R. Zera [PA3]; for R. Zera [PA3] said that Rabbah b. Jeremiah, citing Samuel [BA1], said that rivers drawing from [adjoining] water pools may be used for watering during the festival week. One Master is in agreement with [the statement of] R. Zera [PA3], while the other is not in agreement with [the statement of] R. Zera [PA3]. The text [above stated]: `R. Zera [PA3] said that Rabbah b. Jeremiah, citing Samuel [BA1], said that rivers drawing from [adjoining] water pools may be used for watering during the festival week`. R. Jeremiah [PA4] put all objection to him [R. Zera [PA3]]: but... not watered from [stored] rain nor by that of a swipe-well! Said R. Zera [PA3] to him: Jeremiah [PA4], my son, these Babylonian pools are like water [pools] that do not fail. Our Rabbis taught: Ditches and pools [even though] filled with water on the day before the festival are debarred from being used for watering during the festival week, but if a canal passes between them they may be used. Said R. Papa [BA5]: This is only provided that the greater part of that field obtains its supply from that canal. R. Ashi [BA6] said that [they may be used] even if the greater part of that field does not obtain its supply [from that canal], because since its flow is continuous [the owner] says. if it [the field] does not get enough drink on [this] one day, it will [soon] get its drink in two or three days.` Our Rabbis taught: `If a pool gets tricklings from an irrigated field [higher up], it may be used for watering another field`. But is it not going [ultimately] to give out? Said R. Jeremiah [PA4]: For the present at any rate it is still trickling! Said Abaye [BA4]: This is [permitted] only so long as the first source has not given out. It has been taught: R. Simeon b. Menassia says: Where two cultivated beds lie one above the other, one should not draw from the [supply of the] lower to water the upper. R. Eleazar b. Simeon [T5] went even further, saying: Even in one bed, if half of it is low and the other half higher one should not draw from the low-lying part to water the upper part. Our Rabbis taught: `One may raise [medallin] for the vegetables if they are to be eaten; but if it is to improve their appearance it is forbidden`. Rabina [BA6] and Rabbah [BA3] of Thospia were [once] walking on the road when they saw a certain man drawing buckets of water during the festival week. Said Rabbah [BA3] of Thospia to Rabina [BA6]: Come, Sir, put a ban on him. Said Rabina [BA6] to him, But is it not taught: `One may raise for vegetables to be eaten`? Replied Rabbah, Do you think that this medallin means one may raise water [in buckets]? [No], what medallin means is b.MQ.4b to pull out [vegetables], as we learned: `If one is [engaged in] thinning vines, just as he may thin his own, so also he may thin those due to the poor; so R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y]. R. Meir [T4] says: He is permitted [to attend] to his own but not to those of the poor`. Said Rabina [BA6]: But it is taught [explicitly]: `One may raise water for vegetables if they are to be eaten`! Said Rabbah [BA3] [of Thospia] to Rabina [BA6]: If it is thus taught, that settles the matter. nor may small basins [`ugioth] be formed about the vines. What is meant by `ugioth? Said Rab Judah [BA2], [What we call] banki. It is also taught thus: These are `ugioth; light hoeing done about the roots of olives and at the roots of vines. [But] this is not so, for did not Rab Judah [BA2] allow the family of Bar-Zittai to make banki in their vineyards? This is not difficult: The one statement [in the Mishnah] refers to fresh [trenchings], the other [Rab Judah`s [BA2]] refers to re-trenching. R. Eleazar b. Azariah [T2] says a [water] channel may not be newly made [during the festival week, nor in the Sabbatical Year; but the Sages say]. It is perfectly in order in regard to the festival week, because he performs laborious work, but what reason can there be [against making a channel] in the sabbatical year? R. Zera [PA3] and R. Abba b. Memel differ in the matter: One says [it is forbidden] because [the digger] seems to be doing spading [in his field]; the other says, because he is [thereby] preparing the banks for sowing. What is the [practical] difference between the two [explanations]? There is a difference where water comes along forthwith; according to the one who says that [it is] because he is preparing the banks for sowing, there is [still an objection], but according to the one who says that [it is] because he seems to be doing spading, there is none. But, the one who objects on the ground that he seems to be doing spading, should he not likewise object on the ground that he seems to be preparing the bank for sowing? Rather, the [practical] difference between them is where he takes [the mould] from the trench and throws it outside. According to the one who says that [it is] because he seems to be preparing the banks for sowing, there is no objection, whereas according to the one who says that [it is] because he seems to be spading, there is [still an objection]. But, he who takes the view that he seems to be preparing the banks for sowing, should he not likewise admit the objection that he seems to be doing spading? [No,] because one who does spading, as soon as he takes up a spadeful he puts it down again in its place. Amemar [BA6] taught this [clause of the] Mishnah with the explanation [that R. Eleazar [T4 in M or PA3] b. `Azariah forbids making a channel] `because he seems to be doing spading [in his field]` but felt some difficulty about it in view of another statement of R. Eleazar [T4 in M or PA3] b. `Azariah. Could R. Eleazar [T4 in M or PA3] b. `Azariah [said he] have held the view that wherever one seems to be spading [his field], it is forbidden? And he contrasted that with the [statement in the] following [Mishnah]: One may lay up a store of manure [in his field]. R. Meir [T4] says he may not until he places it either three handbreadths below or three handbreadths above [the surface]. If he had some small quantity [already there] he may go on adding thereto. R. Eleazar [T4 in M or PA3] b. `Azariah says [even then] he may not until he puts it down either three handbreadths below, or raises it three handbreadths above [the surface], or places it on a rock!` R. Zera [PA3] and R. Abba b. Memel [explained this seeming discrepancy], one said: [The latter Mishnah means where], for instance, he has had the place excavated; the other said: [The reason there is because] the manure heap itself attests his intention. And [a channel] that has got out of order maybe re-paired. What is meant by out of order? Said R. R. Abba [BA3 & PA3]: `It means that if it is [now, for instance] but one handbreadth in depth, he may restore it to [a depth of] six handbreadths`. It is obvious that [to restore it] from half a handbreadth to [the original] three, seeing that there was [originally] scarcely any flow of water, it is nothing at all; [to deepen it] front two handbreadths to [the original] twelve which involves extra exertion, is not [allowed]. What about [deepening it] front two [handbreadths] to [the original] seven? [Do we argue that] as in the first instance [it was explained above] he deepens it by five handbreadths, [from one to six], so here he deepens it by five handbreadths [from two to seven]; or, maybe that as in this instance he [actually] deepens the channel by an extra handbreadth there is extra exertion, and hence it is forbidden? It stands undecided. Abaye [BA4] allowed the people of Harmek to clear away [the growths obstructing] the canal. R. Jeremiah [PA4] allowed the people of Sacutha to dredge the canal that had become blocked. R. Ashi [BA6] allowed the people of Matha-Mehasia to clear obstructions from the river Barnis, saying that as the public obtained their drinking water from it it was virtually a [pressing] public need, and we learn: and all public needs may be performed. b.MQ.5a and impaired water-works in the public domain may be repaired and cleaned out. [That is to say only] to repair, but not to be dug [afresh]. Said R. Jacob [T4] as reporting R. Johanan [PA2]: This was taught only where there is no public need; but where there is public need for it even [fresh] digging is allowed.
And where there is a public need is digging allowed? Surely it is taught: `Wells, ditches or caverns of a private person may be cleaned out, and needless to say, those of the public; but wells, ditches or caverns of the public may not be dug and still less those of a private person`. Does not that mean that [digging is not allowed] even where the public has need of it? No, [only] where the public has no need of it. Then similarly the reference to a private person is where the private person has no need of it, but in that case is `cleaning out` allowed? Surely it is taught: `Wells, ditches or caverns of a private person may have water run into them, but they may not be cleaned out, nor have their cracks plastered; but those of the public may be cleaned out and their cracks may be plastered`? But what else [are we to say] but that the private person has need of it; in which case [the references to the public is similarly where the public has need of it? But where the public has need of it, is digging forbidden? Surely it is taught: `Wells, ditches or caverns of a private person may have water run into them or be cleaned out; but their cracks may not be plastered, nor may the scourings be put into them, nor may they be plastered with cement. But those of the public may be dug and plastered with cement`. But [if so], the first [Baraitha] is difficult. Explain it thus: `Wells, [ditches or caverns] of a private person [may be cleaned out]` providing he has need of them, `and needless to say those of the public` when the public has need of them, as then, even digging is allowed. `But wells, ditches or caverns of the public are not to be dug` when the public has no need of them, `still less, those of a private person`, as when a private person has no need of them, even cleaning out is not allowed. R. Ashi [BA6] remarked: Our own Mishnah is also precisely worded [to the same effect] as it states and all public needs may be performed. What is the force of all? Is it not meant to include digging? No; it is to include [other instances] such as are taught [in the following]: `They [Public Commissioners] go forth to clear the roads of thorns, to mend the broadways and [main] highways and to measure the [ritual] pools; and if any [ritual] pools be found short of forty [cubic] seahs of water they train a continuous flow into it [to ensure] forty seahs`. And whence do we know that if they did not go forth and attend to all these [public needs], then if any blood be shed there [through] this neglect [Scripture] lays [blame] on them, as if they themselves had shed it? From the instructive text, And so blood be upon thee. But surely [the Mishnah does] state these instances expressly: and roads, broadways and [ritual] water pools and all public needs may be performed! What else [then] may be included under this word all? Is it not digging [afresh if required by the public]? This proves it. And gravesides may be marked. R. Simeon b. Pazzi [PA3] said: Where is an indication in the Torah that gravesides should be marked? In the instructive text: [And when they pass through... the land] and one seeth a man`s bone then shall he set up a sign by it. Said Rabina [BA6] to R. Ashi [BA6], But who told us that before Ezekiel came? [Said the other]: Accepting your view, with regard to the statement made by R. Hisda [BA3] [namely]: This point we do not learn from the law of our Master Moses; we learn it from the words of [prophet] Ezekiel the son of Buzi: No alien, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into My Sanctuary. [We might equally ask], who had told us that before Ezekiel came and stated it? Only, that was first learnt by oral tradition and then Ezekiel came and gave us a textual basis for it; here too, it was first learnt as an oral tradition and then Ezekiel came and gave us a textual basis for it. R. Abbahu [PA3] suggested that it may be derived from this [text]: And he shall cry, `Unclean! Unclean!` [That is], impurity cries out [to the passer-by] and tells him, `Keep off!` And R. `Uzziel, the grandson of the elder R. `Uzziel said the same, [that] impurity cries out and tells him, `Keep off!` But was this [text] intended for this lesson? It is required for what has been taught: And he shall cry `Unclean! Unclean!`; [this teaches that] one must needs make his distress known to many, that many pray for mercy on his behalf? If that be so, let the text read `Unclean` [but once]; why has it `Unclean`, `Unclean` [twice over]? Infer [from it] the two points. Abaye [BA4] said [that the rule may be derived] from here: And put not a stumbling-block before the blind. R. Papa [BA5] said: And he will say, Cast ye up, cast ye up, clear the way. R. Hinena [PA3] suggested, Take up the stumbling-block out of the way of my people. R. Joshua [T2] the son of R. Idi said: And thou shalt show them the way wherein they must walk. Mar Zutra [BA6] said: And ye shall separate the Children of Israel from their uncleanness. R. Ashi [BA6] said: And they shall have charge of my charge, [which implies], make safeguards to my charge. Rabina [BA6] said: And to him who ordereth [we-sam] his way will I show the salvation of God.
Said R. Joshua b. Levi [PA1], Whoever appraises [ha-sham] his ways [in this life] becomes privileged to behold the salvation of the Holy One, blessed be He, for it is said: `[And to him] who ordereth his way`. Read not [we-sam] who sets [his way], but [we-sham] who appraises the worth [of his way], him will I show the divine salvation. R. Jannai [PA1] had a certain disciple who daily raised critical points [at his college] but refrained from raising any critical points at the periodic lectures of the Festival Sabbaths b.MQ.5b . He [R. Jannai [PA1]] applied to him the text: And to him who ordereth his way will I show the salvation of God. Our Rabbis taught: `No markings are made to indicate [the presence of] a piece of flesh [from a corpse] no larger than an olive, nor of [human] bone no larger than a barley-corn, nor of any [human] remains which do not diffuse defilement under `tent`. But markings are made to indicate [the presence of] a [human] spine, a skull or the major members of a skeleton or the major number of lesser bones thereof. And the markings are not made in cases of certainty but [only] in cases of uncertainty. These are [instances of] uncertainty: Leafy bowers, jutting ledges and a Peras-area. And the markings are not placed on the site of the impurity [itself], in order to avoid wasting what is [preserved as] pure; nor is the marking placed far away from the spot, in order to avoid wasting any space of the Land of Israel`. But does not flesh of an olive`s size from a human body diffuse defilement under a tent? For we learned: `The following diffuse defilement by tent [overspreading]: Flesh of an olive`s size from a human dead body...`! Said R. Papa [BA5], We speak here of an olive`s size precisely which after all shrinks [to less]: far better is it that Terumah and other meats that are pure should be burnt [unnecessarily] on one occasion than that they should be burnt continuously. And these are [instances] of uncertainty: Leafy bowers and jutting ledges. `Leafy bowers` [means] a tree which overspreads the ground and `jutting ledges` are [stones] projecting from wall enclosure. `And a Peras-area`: as we learned: `One who runs a plough over a grave makes the site a Peras-area`; and how much thereof has he thus affected? The full length of a furrow, one hundred cubits [each way]. But does a Peras-area convey defilement by tent? Surely, Rab Judah [BA2], citing Samuel [BA1], said that one [a pilgrim] may walk across a Peras-area cautiously fanning his way [in front of him]! Moreover, R. Judah b. Ammi, in the name of `Ulla [BA3], said that a Peras-area which has been [much] trampled is [considered as] clean? Said R. Papa [BA5]: `This [discrepancy] is not difficult [to explain]. The former statement refers to a field where a grave has become lost; whereas the latter refers to a field where a grave had been run over by the plough`. But is a field where a grave has been lost [correctly] called a Peras-area? Yes [indeed], for we learned: `There are three kinds of Peras-areas [a] a field where a grave has been lost [b] a field where a grave has been run over by the plough and [c] the weepers` field`. What is the weepers` field? R. Joshua b. Abba explained in the name of `Ulla [BA3] that it is a field where they bid final farewell to the dead. And wherefore [is it held as a defiling area]? Said [R. Hisda [BA3], as reporting] Abimi, [It is] because there is here a possibility of abandoned ownership. But does not a field where a grave has been run over by the plough require to be marked? Surely it is taught: `If one came upon a marked field without knowing its character, then if there are trees on it, it is thereby indicated that a grave in it had been run over by the plough; if there are no trees, it is thereby indicated that a grave has been lost in it. R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y] says: [The presence of trees is no criterion] until there is some elder or disciple [to attest it], for not all are well versed on the subject [of proper markings]`! Said R. Papa [BA5]: What is taught in this [latter Baraitha] refers to a field in which a grave had been lost, and which had [consequently] been marked. If there are trees on it, it is thereby indicated that a grave had been run over by the plough [subsequently]; if there are no trees on it, it is indicated that a grave had been lost in it. But is there not a danger that the trees are situate within the field and the grave was outside? As `Ulla [BA3] said [elsewhere that we speak of a case where] the trees are situate on the boundaries [of the field] here likewise they were situate on the boundary line. b.MQ.6a But perhaps the defilement lies within the field while the trees stand on the outer sides [of it]? They were planted irregularly. Or, if you like, I may explain by what was said above: Nor is the marking placed far away from the spot, in order to avoid wasting any space of the Land of Israel. `R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y] says [the presence of trees is no criterion] until there be some elder or disciple [to attest that it has been ploughed], for not all are well versed in the subject [of markings]`. Said Abaye [BA4]: You may infer from here, that when a scholar is resident in a place, all local matters devolve upon him.
Said Rab Judah [BA2]: If one comes across a [single] stone which is marked [with lime], the space under it is defiled; if two stones [with markings] then if there is lime on the space between them, the space between is defiled, and if there is no lime between them, the intervening space is clean, even though there is no [sign of] tilling [there]. But surely it is taught: `If one comes upon one stone which is marked, the space under it is defiled, if on two stones, if there is tilling between them, the intervening space is clean, if not, it is defiled`? Said R. Papa [BA5]. Here [it is a case where] the lime had been poured on top of the stones and got spread here and there. [Now] if there is any tilling [in the space] between them, [the space] between is clean, because it may be presumed that the [splashed] lime had got peeled off by the tilling; whereas if there is not [any trace of tilling] the lime is intended to mark the space between and it is `defiled`.
Said R. Assi [BA1 or PA3]: If one boundary is marked, that side [alone] is `defiled`, but the rest of the entire field is `clean`. If two [are marked] those [alone] are `defiled`, but the rest of the entire field is `clean`; if three [are marked], those are `defiled`, but the rest of the entire field is clean; if the four [boundaries are marked] they are clean and the entire field [within] is `defiled`, for the Master said: `Nor is the marking place far away from the spot, in order to avoid wasting space of the Land of Israel`. and [public commissioners] set out [also] to inspect diverse seed-crops. But do we set out for inspecting seed-crops during the festival week? This is contradicted by the [following]: On the first of Adar announcements are made about the [contribution of] shekels and about the diverse crops. On the fifteenth thereof the scroll [of Esther] is read in the [ancient] walled cities and [commissioners] go forth to clear the roads of thorns, mend the broadways, measure the [ritual] water-pools and to perform all public needs, and they mark the gravesides and go forth to inspect the diverse seed-crops? R. Eleazar [T4 in M or PA3] and R. Jose b. Hanina [PA2] [gave differing explanations], One said, The latter statement speaks of earlier crops, the other of later crops; the other said, In one case [they go out to attend] to grain crops, in the others to vegetable crops.
R. Assi [BA1 or PA3], reporting R. Johanan [PA2] said: The rule laid down [in the Mishnah] applies only when the sproutings [of the season are late and] had not become recognizable [before then]; but where the sproutings had become recognizable [before], they went forth about them [even earlier].
Why do we particularly set out during the festival week? R. Jacob [T4] reporting R. Johanan [PA2] explained that it was because the wages given for labour are then low with us.
R. Zebid [BA5], or some say, R. Mesharsheya said: From the afore mentioned [explanation] you may infer that when pay was given, it was given them out of the Terumah of the [Shekel] Chamber; for if you should suppose that they [the owners of the fields] themselves paid, what difference does it make to us? Let them pay whatever they ask.
And how much [constitutes an admixture]? Said R. Samuel b. Isaac [PA3], The same as we learned: Every seah of seeds that contains one quarter [of a kab] b.MQ.6b of another kind must be reduced. But it is taught: They [the authorities] introduced a rule that they should declare ownerless the [crop of the] entire field? That is not difficult [to explain]. The former [Mishnah] states the practice before the [new] rule, while the latter [of the Baraitha] gives the practice after the [introduction] of the rule, as it is [distinctly] taught: Formerly they [the public commissioners] used to uproot [the diverse-crop], throwing it to the cattle, at which the owners were doubly pleased, for one thing that they weeded their fields for them, and again that they threw [the forbidden crop] to the cattle; thereupon they made a [new] regulation that they should pull up [the forbidden crop] and cast it on the road. And still the owners were greatly pleased, because they weeded their fields. Thereupon they instituted that they should declare ownerless the crop of the entire field.