(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Moed Katan 4



(a) Rebbi Yochanan disagrees with the previous explanation (of Rebbi Yitzchak and Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak). He maintains that Raban Gamliel and his Beis Din rescinded the Takanah of Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai min ha'Torah. He learns from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Shabbos" "Shabbos" from Shabbos Bereishis - that, just like by Shabbos Bereishis, only the day itself is forbidden, so too by Sh'mitah, will only the Sh'mitah-year itself be forbidden, but not the period prior to it and after it. Note: Rebbi Yochanan does not seem to hold of Tosefes Shabbos (see Rosh Hashanah 9a).

(b) His explanation is unacceptable however - because, whether Tosefes Sh'mitah is learned from a Pasuk or from a Halachah, how can a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' uproot either of them?

(c) Rav Ashi amends Rebbi Yochanan's explanation. He explains that in fact, Raban Gamliel and his Beis-Din hold like Rebbi Yishmael, that the Derashah of "be'Charish u've'Katzir Tishbos" pertains to Shabbos and not to forbid Tosefes Sh'mitah. Consequently, we can revert to the explanation that we gave above (at the end of Daf 3b., question 7b. namely, that it was indeed Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel who decreed Tosefes Sh'mitah [from Pesach and from Shavu'os] but that, when they issued the decree, they stipulated that a later Beis-Din would be able to rescind it)

(a) The Tana of our Mishnah forbids using Mei Kilon (water in a pit) to water a Beis ha'Shalachin because of the excessive trouble involved. According to Rebbi Yochanan, he decrees rain-water (that is flowing and does not involve excessive trouble) in case one will then go on to use Mei Kilon. According to Rav Ashi, it is because rain-water itself, before the pits become full (or after the rain stops - Rabeinu Chanan'el), needs to be drawn and *is* therefore Mei Kilon.

(b) Rebbi Zeira quotes ... Shmuel who says that one is permitted to water one's field on Chol ha'Mo'ed from rivers that draw their water from pools - and we do not issue a decree forbidding it because the water in the pools may come to an end, and obtaining a new source of water (on Chol ha'Mo'ed) will involve excessive trouble (Tircha Yeseira).

(c) Shmuel does not decree where there is no Tircha Yeseira because of where there is - and this is also the opinion of Rav Ashi, who only forbids rainwater because it *is* Mei Kilon, but not *because* of Mei Kilon (but it does not does conform with the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan, who decrees one because of the other).

(d) Rebbi Yirmiyah asked Rebbi Zeira (who permitted watering one's field in Bavel from pools of water), why the pools of Bavel should be any different than Mei Kilon, which might dry up and are therefore forbidden. He replied - that the pools of Bavel do not tend to dry up.

(a) The Tana of the Beraisa permits using the water from pools on Chol ha'Mo'ed, provided a stream flows between them - because, should the pools dry up, one can always take to using the water from the stream to water one's fields without excessive trouble.

(b) Rav Papa adds the requirement that one must be able to water most of the field from that stream at the same time. Rav Ashi maintains that this is not necessary - because, seeing as that stream is so conveniently located, he will nevertheless water his field from it (even if it takes two or three days instead of one) rather than getting involved in searching for other sources of water.

(c) One may water a Sadeh Beis ha'Shalachin from a pool of water (even when there is no stream flowing from it) - if the water is dripping into the pool from another (which is situated above it), but only as long as the water is actually dripping.

(d) In addition, Abaye adds - that the original fountain (which feeds the higher Beis ha'Shalachin) has not dried up.

(a) Rebbi Shimon ben Menasya forbids carrying water from a lower field to a higher one - because of the trouble that this entails.

(b) Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon is even more stringent - forbidding even the transportation of water from a lower area in a field to a higher one in the *same* field.

(a) One may water vegetables on Chol ha'Mo'ed - as long as one intends to pick them and eat them on Chol ha'Mo'ed, but not if it is to enhance their growth for after the Chag.

(b) Rabah Tosfa'ah asked Ravina to place a certain man in Cherem one Chol ha'Mo'ed - because he was watering vegetables on Chol'ha'Mo'ed.

(c) Ravina proved to him from a Beraisa that it is permitted to water vegetables as long as one intends to eat them on Chol ha'Mo'ed (i.e. that that is what 'Madlin li'Yerakos ... ' means) - Rabah Tosfa'ah interpreted 'Madlin li'Yerakos ... ' to mean that, when the vegetables are growing too closely, one is permitted to remove some of them to enable the rest to grow properly.

(d) Rabah Tosfa'ah conceded 'I Tanya, Tanya'.




(a) Rav Yehudah translates Ugi'os for the vines (forbidden by our Mishnah on Chol ha'Mo'ed) as 'Banchi' - circular ditches surrounding the vines.

(b) Rav Yehudah himself, who permitted the people of Tzisa'i to dig 'Banchi' for their vineyards on Chol-ha'Mo'ed - permitted only the re-digging of old ones that had become stopped up (which does not involve excessive work), but not new ones.

(a) Rebbi Zeira and Rebbi Aba bar Mamal argue over Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah's reason for forbidding digging the course of a stream in the Sh'mitah year. One of them says because it resembles digging in one's field - the other one, because throwing the dug earth onto the stream's banks looks as if one is creating a new source for seeding.

(b) We suggest that the difference between them will be a case where the water flows along the bed as he digs, since that hardly resembles normal digging. We reject this suggestion however - on the grounds that even the first opinion will have to admit that it looks as if he is creating a new source of seeding and is therefore forbidden.

(c) So we give the difference as being a case where the digger throws the earth beyond the stream's banks, in which case, it no longer looks as if he is preparing them for sowing. This opinion does not forbid it nonetheless, due to the fact that it *resembles* digging - because he maintains, it does *not*, seeing as someone who digs, normally leaves the earth where it is.

(a) The Tana Kama in a Mishnah in Shevi'is says 'Oseh Adam es Zivlo Otzer' - meaning that one is permitted to pile up all one's manure in his field.

(b) But Rebbi Meir forbids it (because it conveys the impression that he is manuring his field), unless he places it in a ditch three Tefachim deep or on a mound three Tefachim high. Rebbi Meir concedes however, that it is permitted even when there is no ditch or mound - if some manure was placed there already before the Sh'mitah.

(c) Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah is the most strict of all - he agrees with Rebbi Meir's stringency, but not with his concession.

(a) Ameimar gave Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah's reason for forbidding the digging of a source of a stream as being because it resembles digging in a field. But didn't we just learn - that Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah himself agrees with Rebbi Meir, who permits digging a trench of three Tefachim in which to place his manure?

(b) Rebbi Zeira and Rebbi Aba bar Mamal give two reasons as to why the latter case (the Mishnah in Shevi'is) is different. One says because it speaks when he already dug the ditch beforehand - the other one says that the fact that he later fills the ditch with manure demonstrates that he is not digging it in order to cultivate the field, and is therefore permitted.

(a) Rebbi Aba explains 'u'Mesaknin es ha'Mekulkeles' (in our Mishnah) to mean that if five Tefachim of a stream that was one Amah deep became stopped up - one is permitted to re-dig the stream to its previous depth of six Tefachim. It is obvious that this will be forbidden if the stream had an original depth of ...
1. ... *three* Tefachim, and two and *half* Tefachim became stopped up - because three Tefachim is too shallow to be of much use (making it an unnecessary Tircha).
2. ... *twelve* Tefachim, of which *ten* Tefachim became stopped up - because, even though the proportion is the same as five Tefachim to six, this is more depth than one needs (making it here too, an unnecessary Tircha).
(b) Rebbi Aba's She'eilah is in the case of a stream that was originally seven Tefachim deep, five of which became stopped up? It might be ...
1. ... permitted - because he is digging five Tefachim, exactly the same as in the original case permitted by our Mishnah.
2. ... forbidden - because one of those five Tefachim is unnecessary and is therefore considered a Tircha Yeseirah.
(c) Abaye permitted the removal of branches from the river bed on Chol ha'Mo'ed; Rebbi Yirmiyah permitted clearing the source of a river that became stopped-up, and Rav Ashi permitted clearing away a large pile of rubble that had formed in the middle of a river. The reason for all these concessions is - because whatever is Tzorchei Rabim is permitted on Chol ha'Mo'ed, even if it involves excessive trouble, even if it is done in public and even if it could have been done beforehand (see Rosh, Si'man 6).
Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,