|
Parshas Behar: The Observance of Shemittah No definitive Halacha LeMa'aseh conclusions should be applied to practical situations based on any of these Shiurim.
At the beginning of this Parsha, the Torah describes some of the details concerning the observance of what is popularly called the Shemittah year, that is, the seventh year of a seven year agricultural cycle in Eretz Yisrael (VaYikra 25:1-7). Later on, the Torah implies that great punishments and suffering result from the failure to observe the laws of the Shemittah year properly (Ibid. 26:34-35); Rashi (on Pasuk 35 Ibid.) presents a calculation as to how the seventy years of Golus which the Jews endured in Bavel corresponded directly to the number of Shemittah years that were not properly observed beforehand. This is perhaps based on the general statement of the Mishnah in Pirkei Avos (5:9) that neglecting to observe the Shemittah year leads to the punishment of exile; the Gemara in Shabbos (33a) adds that when the Jews are exiled for abandoning this Mitzvah, they are replaced in their land by others. This Mishnah (Ibid.) also indicates that the misuse of the produce of this year results in plagues and pestilence in the land. The Ramban, in his commentary on the Torah (Ibid 25:4, s.v. Shabbos L'Shem) explains that the Torah is stricter regarding this Mitzvah than with many others, and that one who denies this Mitzvah denies belief in Hashem's creation of the world and in Olam HaBo. The Rambam, in his Moreh Nevuchim (3:39), suggests that one reason for this Mitzvah is that its proper observance is beneficial for the land and will ultimately allow for increased productivity, while another reason is that it trains people to be sympathetic and kind to other people for the general well being of society. The Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 84) writes that this Mitzvah reminds us that Hashem is the true Master of the world, that one must be prepared to assist others even if one won't get paid back, and that one must have full faith and trust in Hashem alone. The primary Mitzvah relating to the land during the Shemittah year is the Mitzvah to refrain from doing any work on the land or on its trees, as presented by the Rambam in his Sefer HaMitzvos (Mitzvos Asei 135) and in his Mishneh Torah (Hilchos Shemittah V'Yovel 1:1), as well as by the Semag (Mitzvos Asei 147), among others, using the Posuk in this Parsha (Ibid. Pasuk 2) as one of the sources for this Mitzvah. The implication of the Gemara in Avodah Zarah (15b) is that the Mitzvah is not only not to work one's land, but to let one's land rest completely, meaning that one may not have a non-Jew work one's land in his stead, as mentioned by the Tosafos Rid (Ibid. s.v. Amar) and the Minchas Chinuch (Mitzvah 112 Os 1) and others, who note that in this regard, the laws of Shemittah are stricter than those of Shabbos where the prohibition to have a non-Jew work on one's behalf is only MideRabbanan. It is forbidden MideOraisa regarding Shemittah because the Mitzvah is to allow the land to rest, as stated in the Posuk in this Parsha (Ibid.). The subsequent Pesukim in this Parsha (Ibid. Pesukim 4-5) describe four specific activities which are forbidden during the Shemittah year, namely, Ziriah, sowing (planting) seeds in the soil, Zimirah, pruning, Kitzirah, harvesting, and Bitzirah, picking (fruit off a tree). Each of these is listed as an independent Mitzvas Lo Sa'aseh by the Rambam in his Sefer HaMitzvos (Mitzvos Lo Sa'aseh 220-223), as well as by the Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvos 326-329), the Semag (Mitzvos Lo Sa'aseh 266-269), and others. The Beraisa in the Sifra (Parshas Behar Sinai, Parshasa 1 Halachah 4) implies that these four agricultural activities are cited only as examples, but in fact all activities relating to one's field or to one's vineyard are forbidden MideOraisa; the Gemara in Moed Kattan (3a), however, which quotes the same type of derivation, indicates that in fact only the four are forbidden MideOraisa, while the other agricultural activities are forbidden MideRabbanan, with the above Pesukim (Ibid.) serving merely as an Asmachta, a hint in the Torah. The Gemara (Ibid.) then suggests that the status of the prohibition against other activities is subject to a dispute between Amoraim; the Yerushalmi in Kilayim (Perek 8 Halachah 1, 37a-37b) suggests that this may be a dispute among Tannaim as well. The Rambam Hilchos Shemittah V'Yovel Ibid. Halachah 2,3) rules clearly that only the four activities mentioned in the Pesukim in this Parsha (Ibid.) are forbidden MideOraisa, with their violation carrying the standard penalty of lashes (Malkos), while other agricultural activities are prohibited MideRabbanan. There is some question about the status of the act of Nitiyah, planting a single seed, such as for a tree, as opposed to sowing many seeds in the ground. It is clear from the Mishnah in Shevi'is (2:6) that such planting is forbidden; the Rash (Ibid. s.v. Pachos) writes that it is forbidden MideOraisa, which is also the implication of the Gemara in Gittin (53b). In discussing the activities prohibited on Shabbos, Rashi in Shabbos (73b s.v. Kulan) indeed indicates that planting is the same activity as sowing, differing only in name because it applies to trees as opposed to plants; the Eglei Tal (Maleches Zoraya, Siman 1 Sif 2 Sif Katan 5), however, explains why the laws of Shemittah may differ in this regard from the laws of Shabbos. The Rambam (Ibid. Halachah 4) thus seems to hold that planting is forbidden during the Shemittah year only MideRabbanan, although the Chazon Ish (Chelek Zirayim, Hilchos Shevi'is Siman 17 Sif Katan 20) suggests that the Rambam (Ibid.) agrees that this prohibition is MideOraisa, based on the aforementioned Gemara in Gittin (Ibid.). In any case, it is certainly forbidden at least MideRabbanan to plant a tree during the Shemittah year, even if it is not a fruit-bearing tree, as the Rambam states (Ibid. Halachah 5); he later adds (Ibid. Halachah 12) that one who does plant during Shemittah must uproot what he planted, as indicated by the Mishnah in Terumos (2:3), cited in that same Gemara in Gittin (Ibid.). There is also some discussion about the status of the act of Charishah, plowing. The Gemara in Moed Kattan (Ibid.) and the Yerushalmi in Kilayim (Ibid. 37a) mentioned above presents a dispute as to whether or not one who plows during Shemittah receives lashes (Malkos), which would imply that the dispute centers on whether plowing is prohibited MideOraisa or MideRabbanan; Tosafos in Kiddushin (20a s.v. Avakah) indicates that it is MideOraisa. The continuation of both the Gemara in Moed Kattan (Ibid. 3b-4a) and Yerushalmi in Kilayim (Ibid. 37b) suggests, however, that even according to the opinion that the prohibition against plowing is not a regular prohibition (a Lav), which thus results in no Malkos, there is still a prohibition against plowing from the Torah, known as an Issur Asei, since the Mitzvas Asei to let the land rest is being violated. This appears to be the position of the Rambam (Ibid. Halachah 1), who cites both the Posuk in this Parsha (Ibid. Pasuk 2) and the one earlier in the Torah (Shemos 34:21) which each imply that there is a Mitzvas Asei. There is a third opinion in the Yerushalmi (Ibid. 37a-37b) which suggests that there is no Mitzvah from the Torah at all regarding plowing, and it is prohibited at most MideRabbanan; the Rambam later (Ibid. Halachah 4) seems to prefer this view. The Radvaz (Sheilos V'Teshuvos HaRadvaz Chelek 5 Siman Alef 560, on Lishonos HaRambam Siman 196) suggests that there are different types of and purposes in plowing which will effect the precise status of the prohibition. It must be stressed that there are many activities which are unquestionably prohibited MideRabbanan during Shemittah; the Chazon Ish (Ibid. Sif Katan 19) lists 22 of them, and the nature of a given activity's prohibition is significant. The Gemara in Moed Kattan (3a) indicates that an agricultural activity designed not to strengthen a tree, but to prevent further damage is allowed during Shemittah; the Gemara in Avodah Zarah (50b) similarly allows maintenance work to be done if it doesn't improve the product. This idea is based on a Mishnah in Shevi'is (4:6); the Rambam (Ibid. Halachah 7-9) allows several such maintenance activities to be done, adding (Ibid. Halachah 10) that these are all prohibited only MideRabbanan to begin with, and thus may be done to preserve the field and what's in it. A subsequent Posuk in this Parsha (VaYikra Ibid. Pasuk 6) states that agricultural products which have grown or are on the tree during Shemittah may be eaten; the Ramban, in his commentary on the Rambam's Sefer HaMitzvos (Hashmatas HaAsin Mitzvah 3), considers it a Mitzvah to eat such produce, the but the Megillas Esther (Ibid.) and the overwhelming majority of authorities, as noted by Rav Shlomo Zevin (Sefer L'Or HaHalachah, page 100), view it as simply permitted, but not as a Mitzvah. This does not apply, however, to produce worked on or planted (against the Halacha) during Shemittah which generally may not be eaten, perhaps even MideOraisa, as documented by Rav Zevin (Ibid. page 104). Nor does it apply to produce which grew during Shemittah as a result of seeds falling or being blown into the ground accidentally (Sifichin); such produce is forbidden MideRabbanan according to the majority opinion in the Beraisa in the Sifra (Ibid. Perek 4 Halachah 5), and as codified by the Rambam (Ibid. Perek 4 Halachah 2) who explains the reason for this prohibition. It should be stressed that since harvesting and picking are prohibited, as mentioned above, any produce which one is allowed to eat during Shemittah must be harvested or picked in an unusual fashion, or with a different type of cutting instrument than normal as indicated by the Mishnah later in Shevi'is (8:6) and by the Beraisa in the Sifra (Ibid. Perek 1 Halachah 3), and as codified by the Rambam (Ibid. Halachah 1, 22, 23) who adds that one should cut or pick only a little bit at a time. There is, however, some discussion among the Rishonim about the types of fields, that is, guarded, private fields (Mishumar) or ownerless fields (Mufkar), in which the above methods are required, or effective (See Rashi on Yevamos 122a s.v. Shel and Tosafos s.v. Shel Ibid. and Tosafos on Sukkah 39b s.v. B'Meh Dvarim Amurim, and in Ramban on the Torah to VaYikra 25:5, and in Shnos Eliyahu L'HaGra on the Mishnah in Shevi'is Ibid.). It must also be noted that based on the previous Posuk in this Parsha (Ibid. Pasuk 5), the Gemara in Bava Kama (102a) explains that one may use produce of the Shemittah year for any of his needs, but the produce must be used in its normal manner and for its normal usage, as indicated by the Mishnah in Shevi'is (Ibid. Mishnah 2); the Rambam (Ibid. 5:1-12) rules accordingly, citing many examples. As noted by Tosafos in Sukkah (39a s.v. She'Ain), there are many important Halachos to bear in mind concerning produce of the Shemittah year which has a special sanctity, as derived from the Yerushalmi in Shevi'is (Perek 4 Halachah 7, 12b, and see Rashi in Sukkah 40b s.v. B'Shnas, and Rambam Ibid. 10:15), known as Kedushas Shevi'is. Based upon a Posuk earlier in the Torah (Shemos 23:11), the Mechilta DeRabbi Shimon Bar Yochai (Ibid.) indicates that the fields and the crops during Shemittah must be made ownerless (Hefker) so that everyone has equal right and access to them; the Rambam (Ibid. 4:24) rules accordingly. According to Rav Yosef Karo, author of the Shulchan Aruch (Sheilos V'Teshuvos Avkas Rochel Siman 24), it seems that one must actually declare his fruits to be Hefker, but most sources indicate that they are automatically Hefker, as documented by the Chazon Ish (Ibid. Siman 19 Sif Katan 24). Based on the aforementioned Posuk in this Parsha (VaYikra 25:5), the Gemara in Pesachim (52b) teaches that produce of Shemittah cannot be wasted, meaning that a person may not actively ruin or destroy it; the Rambam (Ibid. 5:17) rules accordingly. One must therefore be careful about throwing out Shemittah produce which is still edible; the Chazon Ish (Ibid. Siman 14 Sif Katan 10) discusses what can be disposed of and how. Based upon the same Posuk (Ibid.), the Gemara in Avodah Zarah (62a) learns that it is forbidden to do business with Shemittah produce. The Mishnah in Shevi'is (7:3) also forbids this, but adds that one can sell a small amount of produce which he may have left over; a later Mishnah there (Ibid. 8:3) notes that even in such a case, the sale cannot be done in the normal fashion. It is also important to note that according to the Gemara in Sukkah (40b), money given in exchange for Shemittah produce takes on the same Kedushah and may be used only to buy other Shemitah produce; the Rambam (Ibid. 6:1, 3) rules in accordance with the above. Based on another Posuk in this Parsha (Ibid. Pasuk 7), the Beraisa in the Sifra (Ibid. Halachah 8) teaches that once there is no more of a certain type of produce out in the field, any such produce which one has at home is subject to the law of Biur, elimination. The Rambam (Ibid. 7:3) understands this to mean that it must eventually be destroyed; the Ra'avad (Hasagas HaRa'avad Ibid.) argues forcefully against this, and the Ramban, commenting on the Posuk in this Parsha (Ibid.), states that this requirement is to simply declare the produce as Hefker (after which even he can take it back), as is the view of most authorities, according to Rav Zevin (Ibid. page 102). Finally, the Mishnah in Shevi'is (6:4) indicates that Shemittah produce may not be brought outside of Eretz Yisrael, and the Rambam (Ibid. 5:13) rules accordingly. Since nowadays many fruits and vegetables from Eretz Yisrael are exported to the United States and elsewhere, even people not living in Eretz Yisrael should be familiar with these issues. It should be noted, though, that according to the Gemara in Moed Kattan (2b), there is a dispute among the Tannaim about whether Shemittah today must be observed MideOraisa or MideRabbanan. As documented by Rav Zevin (Ibid. page 110-111), most authorities hold that keeping Shemittah today is a Mitzvah MideRabbanan, with a minority considering it MideOraisa, and some considering it only an act of piety (Middas Chassidus). This issue impacts the applicability of leniencies and legal loopholes, like temporarily selling the land in Eretz Yisrael to non-Jews, which have great relevance today. If you have any questions or comments, please click here |