שנתקווצה¹—Its thorns were removed

OVERVIEW The cited משנה stated that if a field was נתקווצה on שביעית it may be planted on מוצאי שביעית (as opposed to נטייבה או נדיירה were it is prohibited). תוספות clarifies which thorns were removed.

פירש רבינו חננאל קוצין התלושים בה וכן מפרש בירושלמי² – The ר"ח explained that he removed from the field thorns which were unattached to the ground, and so too is it explained in תלמוד ירושלמי. אבל מחוברים הן אסורין מדאורייתא כדאמרינן בפרק הבונה (שבת דף קג,א) – However if the thorns were still attached (to the bush) it is forbidden מה"ת to remove them as the ברייתא states in פרק הבונה regarding שבת that – התולש עולשין והמזרד זרדין³ אם ליפות הקרקע כל שהוא – One who detaches endives or prunes reeds, if it is to improve the land he is liable even for a miniscule amount, and the same applies to שביעית –**** תוספות anticipates a difficulty: אף על פי דפטר התם בארעא דחבריה⁴ – Even though the גמרא there exempts one who is תולש עולשין וכו' in his neighbor’s field (if he has no interest in improving the neighbor’s field [they are not that friendly]) – תוספות responds:

Here, however we cannot establish it in this manner of בארעא דחבריה, for regarding the איסור שביעית one is not exempt on account that it is a מלשאצ"ל.

SUMMARY There is an איסור מה"ת to remove attached thorns on שביעית even from a neighbor’s field, since the פטור of משאצל"ג applies only to שבת but not to שאר איסורים.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות explains why we cannot establish this ברייתא by מחוברין and it was בארעא דחבריה.⁶ Seemingly here by שביעית it cannot be discussing ארעא דחבריה, because here the ruling is whether or not one may plant this field במוצאי שביעית, so if ראובן did something in sשמעון' field (without his approval), why should he not be permitted to plant his field, since the owner did nothing wrong?!⁷

footnotes: ¹ Seemingly this תוס' should precede the previous תוס' ד"ה נטייבה. ² שביעית פ"ד מ"ב (in our text on י,א). See also רש"י ותוס' in בכורות לד,ב ד"ה שנתקווצה. ³ These are considered תולדות of חורש, for one prepares the land for planting. Therefore this is also prohibited on שביעית (just like נטייבה which is חורש [see previous תוס' ד"ה נטייבה]). ⁴ תוספות is asking we can say that the thorns were מחובר, and nevertheless there is no איסור דאורייתא in a case where he was removing thorns from his neighbor’s field where there is no איסור דאורייתא! See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁵ The reason why by שבת he is פטור if it is ארעא דחבריה (even though it is a פסיק רישיה) is because since he is not at all interested in improving his neighbor’s field, it is considered a מלשאצ"ל. However this exemption of מלשאצ"ל is only by שבת where the תורה writes מלאכת מחשבת (in שמות [ויקהל] לה,לג), however by all other איסורים (including שביעית) there is no פטור of מלאכת מחשבת, so therefore even if he had no intent to improve his neighbor’s field (he is אין מתכוין), nevertheless it is פסיק רישיה and is considered as if he is מתכוין and therefore he will be חייב for חורש בשביעית. See the תוס' in שבת קג,א ד"ה לא. ⁶ See footnote # 4. ⁷ See אוצר מפרשי התלמוד # 94.

נטייבה—Improved it

OVERVIEW ר' ירמיה posed a query; if someone sold his עבד כנעני to a נכרי and then died, do we penalize his son to redeem the slave from the נכרי or not. ר' אסי resolved this query from a משנה which stated that if one improved (נטייבה) his field on שביעית, he may not plant it on מוצאי שביעית, and ר' יוסי בר' חנינא concluded that we only penalize the father but not the son. The same will apply by selling the עבד, that the son is not penalized. There is a dispute between רש"י and תוספות as to the meaning of נטייבה.

פירש בקונטרס¹ נזדבלה – רש"י explained that נטייבה means that the field was fertilized. תוספות asks on פרש"י: וקשה דהא איסורא דרבנן הוא² והיכי פשיט מינה בבכורות בפרק פסולי המוקדשין (דף לד,ב) – And there is a difficulty with פרש"י, since fertilizing a field on שביעית is merely prohibited מדרבנן, so how did the גמרא, in מסכת בכורות in פרק פסולי המוקדשין, resolve from this ruling by שביעית, regarding the case – אצרם אזן³ דהוי איסורא דאורייתא⁴ – Of nicking the ear of a בכור, which is a תורה prohibition?! An additional difficulty with פרש"י: וכן⁵ הכא מפקע ליה ממצות היכי פשיט מינה⁶ – And similarly here where he denies the עבד the ability to do מצות; how can we derive this from נטייבה?! תוספות offers his explanation: ומפרש רבינו חננאל נטייבה חרש בה חרישה יתירא⁷ דהוי דאורייתא⁸ – And the ר"ח explained that נטייבה means he plowed it an extra plowing, which is a תורה prohibition – ונדיירה כפירוש הקונטרס⁹ ואף על פי¹⁰ שהוא דרבנן חשיב טפי מנתקווצה¹¹ – And נדיירה means as רש"י explained it, and even though fertilizing is אסור only מדרבנן, nevertheless it is considered a greater improvement than נתקווצה, therefore by נדיירה there is an איסור למוצאי שביעית – ומייתי ראיה מנטייבה – However the proof to צרם אוזן is brought from נטייבה which is an איסור מה"ת, just like צרם אוזן; we derive that just as by נטייבה we do not penalize בנו אחריו, the same applies by צרם אוזן. We have resolved the גמרא in בכורות. תוספות asks: ומיהו אכתי קשה הכא היכי פשיט דילמא עבד שאני דמפקע ליה ממצות – However there is still a difficulty here, how are we resolving the case of עבד from the case of נטייבה, perhaps an עבד is different and stricter, for since he is denying him his observance of the מצות- חמיר טפי מאיסורא דאורייתא כדאמרינן¹² בפרק כל פסולי המוקדשין¹³ (שם דף לד,ב) – It is more strict than an איסור מה"ת as the גמרא states in פרק כל פסולי המוקדשין – תוספות answers: ואומר רבינו תם דגבי שביעית אית לן להחמיר טפי מבשום מקום לפי שהיו מזלזלין בה¹⁴ – And the ר"ת says that regarding שביעית we need to be stricter than in any other place, because they belittled it – כדאמרינן בסוף הניזקין (לקמן נד,א) שהיו חשודין על השביעית – As the גמרא stated in the end of פרק הניזקין, that the people were suspect regarding שביעית (they would not keep it properly) – לכך מייתי שפיר מינה¹⁵ דלא קנסו בנו אחריו – So therefore the גמרא correctly brought a resolution from שביעית that they did not penalize the son after the father’s death – תוספות responds to an anticipated difficulty: ובשטר שיש בו רבית¹⁶ שקונסים אותו דמשמע לעולם אפילו בנו כיון דקנסו זכה בו הלוה¹⁷ – And regarding a שטר where there is interest payment due, where the ruling is that we penalize him, and it seems that this קנס is forever, so that even the son cannot collect, why is it more severe there; תוספות replies; once they penalized the father that he cannot collect, the borrower acquired those monies – תוספות responds to another difficulty: ובשנים שהפקידו אצל אחד זה מנה וזה מאתים – And regarding the case of two people who deposited money by someone, one deposited a מנה and the other deposited two [מנה] hundred דינרים – דאמר ר' יוסי הכל יהא מונח¹⁸ עד שיבא אליהו (בבא מציעא דף לז,א) – Where ר"י ruled that all the monies should be set aside until אליהו will come and ascertain who has the מנה and who the מאתיים, why do we penalize them and their children – תוספות responds:

There, the reason we penalize them is in order that they should admit, but if we would return the מנה to his son, he would not admit.

SUMMARY נטייבה according to רש"י means to fertilize (which is אסור מדרבנן), and according to תוספות it means (extra) plowing which is אסור מדאורייתא. We are stricter by שביעית more than all other איסורים since people are lax in their observance. Generally we are not קונס בנו אחריו except by רבית (where זכה בו הלוה) and מנה שלישית to insure that the רמאי admits.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות asks on רש"י how can we resolve צרם אוזן which is דאורייתא from נטייבה, which is only מדרבנן.²¹ However according to תוספות that we need to be מחמיר by שביעית more than anywhere,²² there is seemingly no question?²³

footnotes: ¹ בד"ה נטייבה. ² מן התורה one is prohibited from plowing, seeding and harvesting on שביעית, but not fertilizing. ³ One is forbidden from inflicting a מום on a בכור, and if he did so he is forbidden to שחט and eat it; (one may eat a בכור only if it happens to receive a מום on its own). The גמרא there queried what is the ruling if the father made the מום and died, whether the son may eat the בכור The גמרא there resolved the query from this same case of שביעית, that just like by שביעית we do not penalize the son where נטייבה, the same by בכור that we do not penalize him if the father was צורם אוזן בכור. ⁴ How can we resolve the query by צרם און בכור (whether we penalize the son), which is a (stricter) תורה prohibition, from the fact that we do not penalize the son by נטייבה which is a more lenient איסור דרבנן?! See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁵ Granted that selling a slave to a נכרי is also only an איסור דרבנן, so therefore the previous question by בכור does not apply to עבד, nevertheless there is still a difficulty, as to how we can derive עבד from שביעית. ⁶ See previous תוס' ד"ה התם that the גמרא in בכורות states that even if we assume that by עבד the rule is קנסו בנו אחריו it would not resolve the query by צרם אוזן בכור, since the crime of selling an עבד is so severe for we are denying him the opportunity to do מצות. We see that the גמרא considers עבד more severe than even צרם אוזן, which is an איסור מה"ת, so certainly עבד should be more severe than נטייבה, which is only an איסור מדרבנן, so how did the גמרא resolve the query by עבד from the ruling of נטייבה?! ⁷ See there in בכורות לד,ב תוס' ד"ה נטייבה who writes, בירושלמי מפרש איזהו טיוב כל העם חורשין פעם אחת והוא חורש שתי פעמים. ⁸ This answers (only) the first difficulty with פרש"י, for now both נטייבה or צרם אוזן are אסור מה"ת. ⁹ See רש"י ד"ה נדיירה that it is natural fertilization by stationing animals in the field. ¹⁰ According to רש"י that נטייבה and נדיירה are both fertilization processes, it is understood why by both of them there is a prohibition to work the field מוצאי שביעית; however according to תוספות that נטייבה is an איסור מה"ת, so we can understand why by נטייבה there is an איסור for מוצאי שביעית, but why is there an איסור for נדיירה, since it too is merely an איסור דרבנן just like נתקווצה, which is מותר למוצאי שביעית?! ¹¹ See רש"י ד"ה נתקווצה that that he removed thorns from the field. ¹² See footnote # 6. ¹³ Just as the גמרא there states that עבד is more חמור than צרם אוזן (which is a דאורייתא), here too עבד may be more חמור than נטייבה (even if it is a דאורייתא), so how can we resolve עבד from נטייבה? ¹⁴ See ‘Thinking it over’. ¹⁵ Indeed עבד may be more חמור than צרם אוזן, but it is certainly not more חמור (regarding קנסות) than שביעית, for since people were lax regarding שביעית it is appropriate to penalize them even more than by עבד. Once we see that לא קנסו בנו אחריו by שביעית, we can be sure that לא קנסו בנו אחריו by עבד. ¹⁶ See ב"ק ל,ב. According to ר"מ there, the מלוה cannot even collect the principle. ¹⁷ The חכמים penalized the מלוה that he cannot collect the קרן (see footnote # 16); this is assumed to mean that the לוה no longer owes him any money, therefore the children cannot collect on this loan since the לוה does not owe any money. ¹⁸ Even though we know that each one deposited at least a מנה, so let us return a מנה to each one and the remining מנה should be מונח עד שיבוא אליהו (as the חכמים rule), nevertheless ר' יוסי maintains that since one of them is a רמאי (a swindler) we punish him that he does not receive even his מנה. The question is that after the litigants die, we should give their children each a מנה; why are we penalizing the children since we say here that לא קנסו בנו אחריו?! ¹⁹ If we would return a מנה to each one, the רמאי would think that he has nothing to lose (and perhaps work out a deal to get some of the third מנה), however if he knows that he loses even his own מנה, he will readily admit that he only has a מנה so he should not lose his principle. ²⁰ He says to himself my מנה is not lost, my children will have it, so he will remain unrepentant. ²¹ See footnote # 4. ²² See footnote # 14. ²³ See תפארת יעקב

*לחוצה¹ לארץ יצא לחירות—To outside of Eretz*Yisroel; he is emancipated

OVERVIEW The משנה stated that if one sold his slave to (a buyer in) חו"ל, the slave becomes emancipated. תוספות explains under which conditions this ruling applies.

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר היכי דמי אי אזיל מנפשיה איבד את זכותו כדאמר בשמעתין² – And if you will say; under which circumstance is this, if the עבד went on his own volition to חו"ל, he lost his right to be set free, as the גמרא shortly states – דבעל כרחו³ אינו יכול להוציאו כדאמרינן בשלהי כתובות (דף קי,ב) דאין הכל מוציאין – For the new master cannot take the עבד out of ארץ ישראל against his will, as the משנה states in the end of מסכת כתובות that not everyone can take someone out from א"י – תוספות answers:

And one can say that we penalize the master immediately when he sells him to someone who lives in חו"ל, for we are concerned perhaps the buyer with his smooth talking will convince the עבד to go with him to חו"ל.

SUMMARY The קנס is levied as soon as the sale takes effect, so that the עבד will not be convinced to go to חו"ל.

THINKING IT OVER Why cannot we say that we are discussing a case where the עבד went with his new master to חו"ל, however the master intended to return back to א"י, in which case the ruling is that לא איבד זכותו?⁵

footnotes: ¹ A marginal note indicates that this תוספות is referencing the משנה on מג,ב. ² See later on this עמוד. ³ תוספות is stating that the only way the עבד goes to חו"ל is if he agrees to it, otherwise the rule is that אין מוציאין מא"י לחו"ל. Therefore if the only option is מדעת, the עבד is not set free, since איבד את זכותו. ⁴ At this point the עבד did not yet go to חו"ל so he did not lose his זכות. This קנס is a preventive measure so that no one sells their slave to someone who lives in חו"ל. ⁵ See מהרש"א and אוצר מפרשי התלמוד # 130.