Shemita - Chapter 5

Drinking is considered as eating (Yoma 7 6b).

See Hilchot Sh’vitat Asor 1:4-5; Hilchot Terumot 11:1, Hilchot Ma’aser Sheni 3:10 which equate smearing oneself with oil and drinking.

Leviticus 25:7 states: “And for the animal and the beast in your land shall (tihiyeh) be all the produce to eat.” The Sifra derives the above concept from this verse.

For these activities also bring direct benefit to man.

See Hilchot Terumah, ch. 11, and Hilchot Ma’aser Sheni, ch. 3, for more particulars concerning these laws.

Which is usually eaten raw.

See Hilchot Ma’aser Sheni 3:11 which states: “We do not require a person to eat bread that has become moldy or oil that has become rancid. Instead, as soon as it has become spoiled to the point that it is not fit for human consumption, its holiness has departed from it.”

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh’vi’it 8:7), the Rambam describes this concept as follows: When terumah becomes ritually impure, it is disqualified and forbidden to be eaten. Now if the oil becomes ritually impure, it will disqualify the vegetable that was cooked in it and require that it be destroyed. Thus one will have caused the produce of the Sabbatical year to be destroyed unnecessarily.

The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam’s wording should not be interpreted as implying that only after the fact, once one has cooked the vegetable in the oil, one may partake of it. Instead, this is permitted at the outset.

Implying that the produce of the Sabbatical year may be eaten by animals.

Even though oil is primarily used as food, it is also common to smear it on one’s flesh (Radbaz). Wine or vinegar, by contrast, are generally not applied as ointments. See Hilchot Ma’aser Sheni, loc. cit.

Because doing so removes it from the category of food and makes it oil for smearing (Hilchot Tero. mah 11 :3).

For applying oil that is holy in a place where people are unclothed is an act of disrespect.

Since the oil is already absorbed in one’s skin.

For this will be using it for a purpose other than a person’s direct physical benefit.

This strengthens the sandal, but does not provide a person with direct physical benefit.

The intent is not necessarily impure hands, but any hands to which one has not been attentive, watching carefully to make sure that they are pure. For if one touches oil with such hands, it becomes impure by Rabbinic decree (Hilchot Sha ‘ar Avot HaTuma ‘ah 8:8-10). Making the oil impure would reduce the number of people who could partake of it. Hence, it is improper to do so.

For once the oil has been applied to one’s flesh, there is no difficulty in it becoming impure, because its sacred quality is divested. See parallels in Hilchot Terumah 11 :.7

Because the oil will be applied to the shoe directly.

Even though the oil will be applied indirectly. to the shoe or the mat, that does not present a difficulty because, as above, once it has been applied to his flesh, its sacred quality is divested.

As stated in Halachah 12, it is permitted to sell produce of the Sabbatical year that is fit for human consumption and use the proceeds to purchase other food. One may not, however, use such proceeds for other purposes even though they benefit man.

In which instance, the oil for which the oil from the Sabbatical year was exchanged receives the status of produce of the Sabbatical year (see Chapter 6, Halachot 6-7).

One may use oil from the Sabbatical year for kindling, because this is a function for which that produce is ordinarily used. Nevertheless, oil is considered primarily as food fit for human consumption. Hence, the proceeds from its sale or exchange may be used for that purpose alone.

It is not common practice to pour oil into a fire. Hence, although license is given to kindle with oil, one may do so only in the ordinary manner.

For this is the ordinary practice.

As the continuation of the Rambam’s words imply, the dye is then considered as imbued with the holiness of the Sabbatical year.

Two plants with natural alcalic properties that make them fit for use as detergents.

For this is their primary use.

Since fruit is primarily used as food, it is improper to use it for any other purpose.

The explanation is dependent on the principle stated in the following halachah.

Liquids were occasionally sprinkled over wounds to induce clotting.

And for no other purpose, even if it is beneficial to man.

I.e., it may be used for a purpose that brings man benefit.

Our translation is based on Rav Kappach’s notes to the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (foe. cit.). Others render it as “hyssop.”

In his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam explains that these are herbs that are used both as spices and for medicinal purposes.

And the holiness of the Sabbatical year does not rest upon it.

And is infused with that holiness.

This represents a change in the Rambam’s thinking from his initial version of his Commentary to the Mishnah (foe. cit.) in which he states that the stringency involved with animal fodder is that it can only be eaten during the time the produce is available in the field. In the final version of the Commentary to the Mishnah, he adopts the position stated here that is based on the Jerusalem Talmud.

As stated in the notes to Halachah 8, when the produce from the Sabbatical year is sold, the proceeds from the sale may be used only for the purchase of food for humans.

This is a decree imposed so that there will not be a dearth of produce in Eretz Yisrael. See Chapter 7, Halachah 12, which states what should be done if such produce is brought to the Diaspora.

This is derived from Leviticus 25:6 which states that the produce of the Sabbatical year “shall be yours to eat.” Implied is that it is for “you” and not for gentiles.

This is referring to a worker hired only for a day(s). Since he is hired for only a short time, it appears as if the person is paying his debt with the produce of the Sabbatical year which is forbidden, see Chapter 6, Halachah 11.

Rav Y osef Corcus states that this and the above clause even refer to a gentile guest or worker.

This is not considered as paying a debt.

This halachah is referring to a woman whose husband traveled to a distant place without leaving his wife adequate support. If she approaches the court, the court expropriates property belonging to her husband and sells it to provide for her support. See Hilchot Ishut 12:1.6

For the husband is liable for her support.

Since she has access to the household provisions, it is not considered as if someone is paying the debt to her (Rav Yosef Corcus).

1. e., before it reaches one third of its growth. Until that point, they are unfit to be eaten [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Shivi’it4:7)].

I.e., until they have ripened.

For it is also common practice to taste a small amount of fruit in the field even in its very early stages of ripening (ibid.).

I.e., until the produce reaches one third of its development (Hilchot Ma’aserot 2:3). That would reflect a further stage of development.

At that time, their surface becomes smooth and there is a certain amount of sap inside them [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Shivi ‘it 4:7)]. At this stage of development, it is ordinary practice for a person in the field to taste a small amount of the fruit.

Our translation of the terms in this clause is based on the Rambam’sCommentary to the Mishnah (Shivi ‘it 4:8).

A revi’it of a log is 86 cc according to Shiurei Torah and 150 cc according to Chazon Ish.

This is the ordinary way in which olives are eaten [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Shivi’it 4:9)], for there is a bitter liquid beneath this covering.

At this stage of development, the amount of oil produced is not significant enough for one to smear himself with it.

Leviticus 25:.6 As stated in Halachah 10, this phrase is also an exclusion, preventing the use of the produce for other purposes.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Shivi ‘it 4: I 0), the Rambam writes that cutting the trees down at this stage of the fruits’ development is forbidden, because it is tantamount to theft. For the fruit was granted to people at large and by cutting down the tree, other people are prevented from harvesting it.

It was permitted to harvest the fruit from this stage of development. Since people already had the opportunity of harvesting it and failed to do so, it is not forbidden to destroy the tree.

I.e., when does the initial stage of development mentioned in the previous halachah begin for various types of fruit.

The interpretation of this clause offered by standard published text of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.) is somewhat confusing. See Rav Kappach’s translation. It is the source for our translation of the following clauses.

Our translation is dependent on the gloss of the Radbaz and Rav Kappach’s notes to the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Orlah 1:9).

The Radbaz explains that this is referring to a species of dates thatnever produces edible fruit, but the clusters themselves are eaten like hearts of palms.

The Kessef Mishneh explains that this license is derived through a process of deduction. Shivi ‘it 9:7 states that the hay and straw of the Sabbatical year may not be used for kindling until the second rain of the eighth year descends. Thus one can obviously conclude that it was forbidden to use them previously.

Hence it should be used for that purpose; see Halachah.3

For they are not useful for any other purposes.

Seemingly, this halachah contradicts the preceding one. Since it is forbidden to use hay and straw from the Sabbatical year for kindling, one would think that it is forbidden to bathe in water heated through such a fire. Why then is bathing in such a bathhouse permitted?
The Kessef Mishneh first states that license to use the bathhouse is only granted after the fact. At the outset, one should not use such hay and straw for this purpose. Alternatively, he explains - as does the Radbaz - that there is no difficulty in using such hay and straw for this purpose, for just as animal fodder of the Sabbatical year can be used to make a compress for a person (Halachah 11), it can be used to heat a bath for him.

The Kessef Mishneh offers this interpretation, resolving the question posed by the Ra’avad who had objected to granting license to use such hay and straw when payment is taken, for that resembles selling the produce of the Sabbatical year asmerchandise, which is forbidden (Chapter 6, Halachah 1). The Kessef Mishneh explains that the prohibition
against selling the produce of the Sabbatical year involves only selling food.

That are fit to be eaten [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Shivi’it 8:11)].

The Rambam is explaining the rationale for the restriction stated in the above mishnah. Others maintain that the rationale is that an important person should not rely on the leniency and, instead, should be stringent not to derive even such benefit from the produce of the Sabbatical year.

Instead of using them as food.

See Hilchot Terumah 11:10-1 l. The Radbaz explains that this can be derived from a logical inference. If leniency was granted with regard to terumah which is punishable by death, surely, it should be granted with regard to the Sabbatical year, for its prohibitions are not punishable as severely.

In which instance the holiness of the Sabbatical year falls upon them, as stated in Halachah 9.

For there are many who eat this type of produce as food, while it is soft. See Hilchot Berachot 8:.6 Needless to say, if it hardens to the point it is no longer edible, it is considered as mere wood (Radbaz).

Since the spices were placed in a wrapping, they could be removed from the food after it was cooked. Their status depends on whether their flavor is retained or not.

The holiness of the Sabbatical year does not rest upon them, for they are no longer considered as food.

I.e., to use the. mud for building. Since the straw and hay are fit for use as animal fodder, it is improper to use them for purposes that do not bring direct benefit to man or animals.

Because they are no longer suitable for use as animal fodder. The Ra’avad [based on the Jerusalem Talmud (Shivi ‘it 9:7)] states that one must actually sleep on the pillow, for the status of the straw to change. The commentaries note, however, that the Tosefta (Shivi ‘it 5:11) does not make such a qualification.

I.e., one should not cook in it while it is hot, so as not to benefit from the kindling of the produce of the Sabbatical year. The license granted in Halachah 20 is not appropriate here, because in this instance, the person is not receiving direct benefit from the burning of the straw (Radbaz).

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pe’ah 8:1), the Rambam explains that, in Eretz Yisrael, there is one wave of rain at the end of the summer. Afterwards at the beginning of the winter - i.e., depending on the year, between the seventeenth of Cheshvan and the first of Kislev, there is a second wave of rains which are very important for the success of the crops of that land.

The Jerusalem Talmud (Shivi ‘it 9:7) explains that from the time the rain descends, the straw in the field is no longer fit for an animal to eat. Therefore, there is no longer any restriction on using the straw in one’s home.