Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

As mentioned in Chapter 1, Halachah 4, fertilizing is a task forbidden by Rabbinic Law.

Because it does not appear that he is preparing to fertilize his field immediately.

Our translation is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh’vi’it 3:1)]. There he explains that although matok, the name the Mishnah uses, means “sweet,” this fruit has a bitter taste and that term is used as a euphemism. Some have identified this species with the colocynth, a wild gourd with a very bitter flavor. The Radbaz identifies it with a bitter species of grass.

Anything smaller might convey the impression that he is fertilizing his field. a

Hilchot Shabbat 16:3 defines an area in which a se’ah of grain is sown as 50 cubits by 50 cubits. In this instance as well, if he makes more than three waste heaps, it might appear that his intent is to fertilize the field.

I.e., we are not concerned that an onlooker might think that he is fertilizing his field.

I.e., create one very large waste heap that encompasses a greater area than the three waste heaps in a 2500 sq. cubit area.

By fertilizing it, for the waste is not in direct contact with the earth.

For use after the Sabbatical year.

I.e., according to the guidelines established in the previous halachot.

The Ra’avad cites the Jerusalem Talmud (Sh’vi’it 3:4) which emphasizes that the person’s intent should not be to fertilize his field, but to take care of his sheep. When he does that, he can have a portion of his field fertilized as a by-product.

100 by 50 cubits.

I.e., when an observer will see that the entire field was not fertilized, he will realize that the person did not fertilize it by hand, because then there would be no purpose in leaving part of it unfertilized.

The Radbaz explains that the Rambam’s ruling applies whether the quarry is open or underground. There are, he explains, other opinions that maintain that if the quarry is open, there is no obligation to begin extracting the stones before the Sabbatical year.

Provided one’s intent is genuinely to quarry stone and not to improve the field (Radbaz).

I.e., all the stones, even those smaller than the size specified.

When a person is taking many stones of this size, the effort involved clearly indicates that he is intending to use them for building and not merely to improve his field.

So that he will not have prepared his field by removing the stones.

That he must leave a row of stones a handbreadth high above the earth.

By leaving an additional area that he could sow in the following year.

The Radbaz asks: We see that our Sages forbade certain activities because of the impression that an observer might derive. If so, what does the owner’s intent matter? An observer may think that he is intending to clear his field. For this reason, he explains that the owner must perform an activity that makes it obvious that he is intending to use the stones for building, for example, using them for construction that is presently being performed on his property.

This indicates that he was not using the Sabbatical year to perform whatever work that was possible in his field.

I.e., even small stones and even when he tears down a wall that is less than ten handbreadths high.

I.e., a person who hires out the field for his own purposes. See Halachah 12 and the Rambam’s commentary to its source (Sh’vi’it 3:9).

Because he would not take the stones unless they would benefit him. Needless to say, one may not destroy a wall in a colleague’s field at whim. Thus even when the owner knows that the wall is being tom down, as long as it is being tom down to be used for building, it is permitted to do so.

For, as above, the size of these stones indicates that they will be used for building. The implication is that not only is the person allowed to remove these two large stones, heis allowed to remove all the stones in the field (Radbaz). Needless to say, this leniency is granted only when he genuinely intends to use the stones for construction, not when he desires to clear his field.
One might ask: Why are only two stones required to be of this size in this instance, while in Halachah 8, ten large stones are required? Among the answers given is that in this instance, since the stones are scattered over a larger area, their removal is less likely to be noticed by an observer. In Halachah 8, by contrast, since the stones are all located in one place, an observer will see that they have been removed (Pe ‘at HaShulchan).

Lest an observer think that he is intending to clear his field.

For if he desired to clear his field, he would take the large stone or straw that is beneath them as well.

And such work is forbidden in the Sabbatical year.

Our translation and the bracketed addition are based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh’vi’it 3 :8).

If, however, he must descend into the groove to pick up a stone, it is forbidden to remove it, lest an impression be created that the person is seeking to improve his field and make the groove fit for sowing (ibid.). The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s ruling, offering a different interpretation of his source (Sh’vi’it, loc. cit.). [The Ra’avad’s interpretation is paralleled by Rabbenu Shimshon’s understanding of that mishnah.] The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh offer different explanations that reinforce the Rambam’s understanding.

A person who had hired the field. See Halachah 8.

Even though he hired the field, it is not his own and we do not suspect that he will transgress to improve it. The Ra’avad understands Sh’vi’it 3:9, the Rambam’s source differently, seeing it as interrelated to the concepts mentioned in the previous halachah.

I.e., rather than being rebuilt with stone.

For an onlooker will think that the person is rebuilding it for the purpose of improving his field and enabling him to sow it the. following year. See the explanations in the notes to the following halachah.

For an observer will understand that he is rebuilding it to remove an obstacle for people at large. (Alternatively, when there are obstacles for people at large, we do not enforce restrictions instituted only because of the possibility that an observer will derive a mistaken impression.)

In this situation, by closing it, he is creating a divider between his field and the public domain.

The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam’s ruling, maintaining that since there is a gap in the fence separating his field from the public domain, he is allowed to rebuild it in all instances. The Ra’avad and the Kessef Mishneh note that the Jerusalem Talmud (the conclusion of ch. 3 of Sh’vi’it) supports the Rambam’s position.

Building a wall between one’s own field and a colleague’s is prohibited lest an onlooker think that one is preparing the land in order to sow one’s field. Alternatively, we fear that the person may change his mind and sow the land (Radbaz). A person is, however, permitted to build a wall between his own field and the public domain to set off his property from the public domain. Alternatively, it is not common to sow the land next to the public domain, so there is no need for the above suspicions.
In the previous halachah, repairing a wall between one’s field and the public domain is prohibited when the open space is filled with earth. Here, since it is entirely open, a wall may be built, as in the latter clause of that halachah.

Since he digs until a stone, but does not remove the stone, it is clear that his intent is not to improve his field, for one cannot sow on a stone.

But not in the public domain. See Sh’vi’it 3:10.

See Halachot 1-3.