ETH S'FIACH K'TZIRCHA' (THAT WHICH GROWETH OF ITSELF OF THY HARVEST) THOU SHALT NOT REAP. "Even if you did not sow it, but it grew from the seed that had fallen [into the ground] at the time of the harvest [of the sixth year], and it is that which is called
's'fiach' (aftergrowth) —
thou shalt not reap, to take possession of it like other harvests, but is to be free for everyone. AND THE GRAPES OF 'N'ZIRECHA' — which you have barred and separated from people, and not declared ownerless — THOU SHALT NOT GATHER them. You may only gather them after they have been declared free for all." Thus the language of Rashi.
The Rabbi's [i.e., Rashi's] meaning by [writing] this is because he is of the opinion that if a person guards his field and his fruits in the Sabbatical year [at the time of growth, and afterwards he declares them free for all], the produce does not become prohibited [as food]. So also did he [Rashi] write in his commentaries to Tractate Yebamoth
Yebamoth 122a.
and to Tractate Succah.
Succah 39b.
This is indeed so according to the law of the Torah, as is established by clear proofs. And that which is taught in the Torath Kohanim:
Torath Kohanim, Behar 1:3.
"
And the grapes of 'n'zirecha' thou shalt not gather. From that which was guarded when in the soil [i.e., when it is in the process of growth] you shall not gather, but you may gather from that which was made free for all"
From this text you might understand that if the fruits were guarded whilst they were growing, they become completely prohibited for ever. But this is not correct. Rashi will explain the text etc.
— the Rabbi [Rashi] will explain it in the following way: "Grapes which have been kept away from people you may not gather as long as they are so barred; you must rather declare them all ownerless, and then you may gather them together with the poor."
The correct interpretation of the verse is that the expression
the grapes of 'n'zirecha' is like
's'fiach' of thy harvest, and
thou shalt not gather is like
thou shalt not reap, for the purport of the whole section is to state a twofold law to the Israelites — warning with respect to fields and warning again with reference to vineyards. Thus:
thou shalt sow thy field … thou shalt prune thy vineyard;(3).
thou shalt neither sow thy field, nor prune thy vineyard.
(4).
Similarly,
And six years thou shalt sow thy Land … but the seventh year thou shalt let it rest and lie fallow … In like manner thou shalt deal with thy vineyard.
Exodus 23:10-11.
And the meaning of the verse [here] is that that which grows by itself in a field without intentional plowing and sowing is called "
s'fiach of the harvest," because it is "attached" to the harvest of the past year, this term being of the root,
'v'nispechu' (
and they shall cleave)
to the house of Jacob.
Isaiah 14:1.
Likewise the vine which has not been cultivated, nor hoed or pruned, is called
nazir, because [the owner] "held himself aloof and put it away from him" as if it were not his, of the root,
because 'nazoru' from Me through their idols,
Ezekiel 14:5.
[which means] "they separated themselves from Me." Similarly,
'v'yinazru' (
and they separate themselves)
from the holy things of the children of Israel.
Above, 22:2.
And Onkelos [also] translates here [
and the grapes of 'n'zirecha'] as
shivkach, which means [those grapes that] "you have left" to be
for briers and thorns.
Isaiah 7:23.
It is possible that the custom in Israel was that a vineyard
which was uncultivated, neither pruned nor hoed, and in which briers and thornsSee ibid., 5:6.
grew up, they called
nazir, that is to say, it is a vineyard of the Nazirite, since the Nazirite is forbidden to drink wine
nor eat fresh grapes or dried,
Numbers 6:3.
and he does not cultivate his vineyard. They also gave a name to long hair derived from the Nazirite, as it is said,
Cut off 'nizreich' (
thy hair)
and cast it away.
Jeremiah 7:29.
This then is the sense of [the expression here]
the grapes of 'n'zirecha,' the general purport thereof being that they are the grapes which grow without cultivation of the vineyard. Thus Scripture is stating that that which grows by itself in the field he may not reap, and the grapes which grow in the vineyard without work he may not gather. And the meaning of these negative commandments is that you may not reap them alone for your own needs, nor are you to gather the grapes for yourself [only], but
it shall be a year of solemn rest for the Land(5) before us.
from sowing and pruning,
and the Sabbath-produce of the Land,
(6).
that is, whatever the Land brings forth in its rest, whether
s'fiach or
nazir [as explained above]
shall be unto all of
you together
for food, for thee,
(6).
and for thy poor, and for the beast and for the cattle.
See Verses 6-7.
Now I will return to explain the Beraithoth taught in the Torath Kohanim on this subject, because they are misleading [in their plain sense]. On the verse,
And if ye shall say: 'What shall we eat the seventh year? behold, we may not sow, nor gather in our increase,
Further, (20).
the Rabbis taught there [in the Torath Kohanim]:
Torath Kohanim. Behar 4:5.
"If people do not sow, what is there to gather? [So why then did Scripture prohibit gathering the increase, since there can be none to gather without sowing?] Said Rabbi Akiba: It is from here that the Sages found a Scriptural source for
s'fichin (aftergrowths), [indicating] that they are forbidden in the Sabbatical year." This Beraitha is quoted in the Gemara [of Tractate Pesachim] in the Chapter
Makom Shenahagu ("
A place where the custom is").
Pesachim 51b.
And it is further taught in the Torath Kohanim:
Torath Kohanim. Behar 4:5.
"But the Sages say: Aftergrowths are not forbidden by law of the Torah, but only by decree of the Scribes. If so, why is it said,
behold, we may not sow, nor gather?Further, (20).
[It means as follows:] You have told us not to sow, and what there is for us to gather — [the aftergrowths] — we may not bring in for storage [after the time of the Removal];
See Ramban further, (7) for a full discussion of this law.
and then You have told us, 'Remove it [from the house],' what then shall we eat from the time of the Removal onwards?" Thus far [are the words of the Torath Kohanim].
Thus it is clear that according to the words of the Sages the prohibition of aftergrowths is only by law of the Rabbis, that is to say, it is they who decreed that they be prohibited altogether, because of the suspicion that the owners might sow and say that these are aftergrowths. It is for this reason that the Rabbis have said in the Yerushalmi:
Yerushalmi, Baba Bathra V, 1. The translation follows the commentary of P'nei Moshe there.
"Rabbi Yannai said: All aftergrowths are forbidden [under the law forbidding theft, i.e., since they belong to the owner of the field, they may not be taken by a stranger during the non-Sabbatical years], except for those which come up in an uncultivated field, a plowed field, a field containing a vineyard, or a field sowed [with fenugreek]. [The aftergrowths of] an uncultivated field [are permissible to a stranger] because the owner pays no attention to such a field [and therefore it is considered ownerless]. A plowed field — the owner desires to clear of all growths. A field containing a vineyard — the owner does not want to forfeit his vineyard
Deuteronomy 22:9.
[because the aftergrowths of the grain in the vineyard constitute diverse kinds which are forbidden, and so he welcomes their being taken out by anyone]. A field sowed [with fenugreek] — the owner does not want to maintain aftergrowths therein [because they harm the fenugreek]."
In other words, the aftergrowths of these four kinds of fields may be taken by anyone during all normal years, because the owners consider these growths ownerless; and in the Sabbatical year, since the owners are not suspected of having violated the law against planting them, they are permissible to the owners together with everyone else. But in all other fields, since the aftergrowths during any non-Sabbatical year are forbidden to be taken by strangers because the owners do not wish to relinquish their possession of them, in the Sabbatical year they are subject to the law of aftergrowths, as will be explained.
It is on the basis of this division of opinion [between Rabbi Akiba, who says that aftergrowths are forbidden in the Sabbatical year by law of the Torah, and the Sages, who are of the opinion that they are forbidden only by Rabbinical decree], that it is taught there in the Torath Kohanim:
Torath Kohanim, Behar 1:3.
"
That which groweth of itself of thy harvest thou shalt not reap. It is from here that they found a Scriptural source for forbidding aftergrowths in the Sabbatical year." They thus gave their teaching in accordance with the words of Rabbi Akiba, [who explains the phrase]
thou shalt not reap as [prohibiting] altogether [any reaping, even of aftergrowths, by law of the Torah], But according to the words of the Sages [the verse means] that you are not to reap them [solely] for yourself, nor are you to gather the grapes [of your undressed vine solely] for yourself, but you are to treat them as if they were ownerless property. Similarly,
and we do not gather in our increaseFurther, (20).
means that we do not gather [entirely] into our homes the fruits of the tree [which grow by themselves] nor the aftergrowths [of crops], because we must declare them ownerless for the poor, the beasts and the cattle, and at the time of Removal,
See Ramban further, (7) for a full discussion of this law.
[and therefore one might say that] we are not able to live on them [since we cannot use them entirely as our own possession.]!
Now these aftergrowths which are forbidden according to Rabbi Akiba are those which have grown in the forbidden season. [i.e., the Sabbatical year]: in grain, all that has reached a third of its growth in the Sabbatical year, and in the case of vegetables, whatever has sprouted in the Sabbatical year are forbidden by law of the Torah. But according to the Sages they are forbidden by decree of the Scribes, except for those [aftergrowths] which come up in any of those [four kinds of] fields mentioned in the Yerushalmi
Yerushalmi, Baba Bathra V, 1. The translation follows the commentary of P'nei Moshe there.
which we have quoted above. However, vegetables that sprouted in the sixth year but were harvested in the seventh, are also subject to all the laws of the sanctity of the Sabbatical year [regarding Seventh year produce, which are as follows]: they must not be wasted [as they were given for food;
(6).
their money substitute may not be used] for [obligatory] offerings;
For if a person has an obligation to bring any offering, as for instance if he commits one of those sins for which he must bring a sin-offering, etc., he must discharge his duty from unhallowed money, and since the money-substitute of the Seventh-year produce is as sacred as the original produce, therefore this obligatory offering cannot be bought with this money.
[they may not be used] for the purpose of trade, and they are subject to the law of Removal.
See Ramban further, (7) for a full discussion of this law.
For even though these vegetables grew completely in the sixth year [nonetheless if they were harvested in the seventh year, they are subject to the laws of the Sabbatical year], because we follow in the case of vegetables the time of collecting them in, whether for tithes
In the first and second years of the Sabbatical cycle, as well as in the fourth and fifth years, the First and Second Tithes are given of all produce, while in the third and sixth years, the First and the Poorman's Tithes are given. The First Tithe is given to the Levite; the Second Tithe belongs to the owner, but he must eat it in Jerusalem. The Poorman's Tithe is given to the poor, and they may eat it wherever they are. Now each group of produce has different rules to determine which is the relevant year for its specific tithes, since different factors apply; for instance: the fruits, crops and vegetables. The point here is that in the case of vegetables the determining factor is the time when they are gathered. Hence if, for example, the vegetables grew in the second year and were collected in the third, the tithes given are the First and Poorman's Tithes. Similarly, if they grew in the sixth year and were collected in the seventh, the laws of the Sabbatical year apply to these vegetables, as specifically explained in the text.
or for the Sabbatical year. But the law of aftergrowths does not apply to them, for they are not aftergrowths of the Sabbatical year since they grew in the sixth year, and even if they continued [their growth] in the seventh year, the law of aftergrowths does not apply to them. It is with reference to such vegetables that we were taught [in the Mishnah]:
Shevi'ith 8:4.
"If a man said to a laborer [in the Sabbatical year], 'Here you have an
issar [a coin equivalent to one twenty-fourth of the silver
dinar], and gather me vegetables today', his payment is permitted etc."
That is, the laborer is not restricted to buying only food, drink, or unguents with the money, as would have been the case if the money were subject to the laws of the sanctity of the Sabbatical year. "But if he said to him, 'In return for it [i.e., the issar] gather me vegetables today,' his payment is forbidden" [i.e., he is restricted to using the money only for the above-mentioned purposes]. The difference between these two cases is generally explained to be that the latter transaction resembles a sale [in exchange for the coin he gathers for him the vegetables], and it is forbidden to sell Seventh-year produce; therefore the money is "seized" with the sanctity of the original produce.
And similarly we were taught [there] in a Mishnah:
Shevi'ith 7:3.
"A man may not gather in the [wild] vegetables in a field and sell them in the market; but he may gather them in and his son may sell them for him;" and we were also taught there:
Ibid., 9:1.
"Rue, goosefoot, etc. may be bought from anyone in the Sabbatical year, since no watch is kept over the like of these" [wild vegetables, and, since they are ownerless, the sanctity of the Sabbatical year does not apply to them].
Now some [scholars] say
This opinion is stated by Rambam, Hilchoth Sh'mitah V'yoveil 4:3. See my Hebrew commentary p. 170 for the text.
that [in the case of] these vegetables mentioned [in the above Mishnah] and all similar ones, which people do not usually sow, but which grow by themselves on mountains and near rivers, the prohibition of aftergrowths does not apply to them at all even though they grew in the Sabbatical year, since the Rabbis only forbade [the aftergrowths of] those things which are normally planted, in order that one should not plant them [in the Sabbatical year and then say that they grew by themselves]. And so it appears from the Gemara of the Yerushalmi [mentioned above]. This is the subject of "aftergrowths" whenever the Sages mention it [in the Talmud].
Similarly it is [forbidden by law] of the Torah for a person to guard his field and lock it up from the poor in the Sabbatical year, even if he intends to declare them free for all at the time of gathering them in; instead, the field is to be ready and free for the poor throughout the year. Thus the Sages taught in the Mechilta:
Mechilta, Kaspa 20.
"
That the poor of thy people may eat.
Exodus 23:11.
'Why did the Torah say this? Was it not so that the poor may eat it? If so, I am going to gather in the fruit and distribute it among the poor'. Therefore Scripture states,
But the seventh year thou shalt let it rest and lie fallow.
Exodus 23:11.
This teaches that the owner is even [obliged] to make breaches in the fence [so that everyone may come and take]. The Sages, however, as a precaution for the general good, allowed him to keep the fence." Now the restraining measure which the Sages established was only that he need not make breaches in the fences of his field and vineyard, but not that he may guard his field and gather in the fruits, thereby transgressing the words of the Torah. Moreover, the Sages even decreed against buying fruits which have been guarded, or even from one who is under suspicion of so [guarding]. It is with reference to this that we have been taught in the Mishnah:
Ibid., 9:1.
"[The wild vegetables mentioned] may be bought from anyone in the Sabbatical year, since no watch is kept over the like of these." And in Tractate Succah the Rabbis have said:
Succah 39a-b.
"One may not hand over to those ignorant of the law more of the monetary equivalent of fruits of the Sabbatical year than that needed for three meals.
Three meals are needed for the Sabbath, and since it is permitted to give it to him before the Sabbath in order that he may buy the three required meals, it is permitted throughout the week (ibid.). See also the following note for fuller explanation.
This applies only where he buys [the fruits] from a field which was free for all,
In other words, if the chaver (a person who is faithful in observing the law) sees the owner [who is ignorant of the law] taking the fruits from an unguarded field, he may give him the monetary equivalent of three meals' worth of fruits; but he is not permitted to give the owner more money than that required for three meals, for since such money must be spent according to the restrictions of the sanctity of the Sabbatical year [i.e., he must spend it only for food, drink or unguent] it is feared that the seller receiving such money may not do so. But the Sages permitted the chaver to give him the monetary equivalent of three meals so that he may have sufficient food for himself [for a day] (Rashi, ibid.).
but if he buys from a guarded field, even the value of half an
issar is forbidden." And the reason for this is as follows: When the purchaser buys it from a field which was free for all — that is to say, from things which people usually bring from ownerless property, or if it is known that he brought them from a place which was declared free for all — then [the purchaser who knows and observes the law] is permitted to buy the fruit. However, if he gives the owner more money than is needed for his [three] meals on that day, we suspect that the [seller who is] ignorant of the law might use [this money] for the purpose of business [which he is forbidden to do]. But if he buys things which it is customary to guard, then even if it is [no more than the value of] half an
issar, we suspect that [the seller, being ignorant of the law], guarded them, in which case it is forbidden to buy from him. However if he buys a
perutah's worth of fruits, or less than half an
issar, the Sages did not prohibit this, because it is customary for people to gather them in from any [unguarded] place, even during the other years of the Sabbatical cycle.
It is referring to this that the Sages have taught:
Yebamoth 122a.
"If a non-Jew was selling fruits in the market, and he said [by way of praising his products], 'These fruits are
orlah [of the first three years' growth, and are therefore better than the fruit of an old tree], or 'they are of
azeikah' [a term explained further on], he has said nought [i.e., we do not believe his statement that the fruits are
orlah etc., and hence forbidden; instead we say that these fruits come from the majority of trees which are nor
orlah, and they therefore may be eaten]. For the seller only intended to praise his products." Now Rashi explained there in the name of the early scholars,
See in Seder Emor, Note 485.
[that the term
azeikah means that the fruits come] from an orchard "that is enclosed" with a fence around it, and it happens to be the Sabbatical year. Now if we were to believe him [the non-Jewish seller], it would be forbidden to buy the fruits from him in a city wherein most [of the inhabitants] are Jews, lest he is a tenant-laborer of a Jew and guards the field for him; or we would suspect that he may have gathered [these fruits] from a field belonging to a Jew [who has not declared them free for all] and he sells them; or that the fruits belong to a Jew and he is selling them for him. Or perhaps [even if the land belongs to the seller], a gentile cannot make such an acquisition in the Land of Israel as to negate the laws of the Sabbatical year [from his produce]. The Rabbis therefore decreed that the fruits of his field are to be regarded as those of an Israelite [and hence subject to all the laws of the Sabbatical year]. Nonetheless, the Sages did not prohibit the fruits of a guarded field [in the Sabbatical year] to everybody, but only [decreed] that one should not buy them directly from the owner who guarded them [but it is not the fruits themselves of a guarded field which are prohibited; thus if they have already been sold to a first purchaser, another Jew may buy them from him]. Therefore the Rabbis taught in the Torath Kohanim:
Torath Kohanim, Behar 1:3.
"
And the grapes of thy undressed vine thou shalt not gather. From that which was guarded when in the land you are not to gather, but you may gather from that which was free for all.
Thou shalt not gather, in the [ordinary] manner of those who gather grapes. It was on the basis of this that the Sages said: 'Seventh-year figs may not be cut with a special fig-knife [but may be cut with an ordinary knife]; grapes may not be pressed in a wine-press, but one may press them in a vat.'" And the meaning thereof is as follows: Since it is not written "the grapes of the undressed vine thou shalt not reap," but instead it is written
'thy' undressed vine, it is to be interpreted that you are not to gather them in the way you usually gather your grapes, but you may gather them together with the poor in the way that they gather them, meaning to say that he is not to guard them for himself, but he is to gather them with the poor as if they were ownerless. Similarly he is to treat them [after he has gathered them in] as the poor do, and press them in a vat. And it is further taught there [in the Torath Kohanim]:
Ibid., 1:5.
"
And the Sabbath-produce of the Land shall be for food for you.
(6).
You are to eat from that which rested in the land [as will be explained], but you may not eat from that which was guarded. Hence the dictum of the Sages:
Shevi'ith 4:2.
The School of Shammai say, one may not eat from the produce of a field which has been industriously tilled.
The Mishnah refers to a time when the Rabbis permitted tilling the ground once in the Sabbatical year in order to enable the people to pay the Roman government the tax imposed on land, as failure to do so could have led to mortal danger. But if the owner tilled the land twice, the question arises whether the produce thereof may be eaten, since a field which was tilled twice is treated as a field that was guarded.
But the School of Hillel say that one may eat of it.'" That is to say, since the Torah stated that the produce of the Sabbath should be for us for food, and not that which was guarded, the School of Shammai say that the fruits themselves become prohibited [and therefore the produce of a field which was tilled twice, and considered as a field that was guarded, may not be eaten]; but the School of Hillel are of the opinion that the fruits themselves are not prohibited, for Scripture's intention is only to forbid us to guard [our produce], in order that our crops should be from a field in which the Sabbatical rest was observed. Similarly when the Rabbis have said
Shevi'ith 8:6, and referred to in the Torath Kohanim (Behar 1:3) mentioned above.
that seventh-year figs may not be cut with a [special] fig-knife, and grapes may not be pressed in a wine-press, [these laws are] a "fence" and guard of Rabbinic origin, in order that people should not come to guard and gather in their crops, and rob them from the poor. This is [the meaning of] that which is taught here in these Beraithoth [of the Torath Kohanim], and it is the best and clearest exposition of the discussions in the Babylonian and Jerusalem Gemara. The scholar who is acquainted [with the Talmud] will succeed in finding these texts.