Shemita - Chapter 8

As stated in Chapter I.

They should not be given verbal encouragement. Needless to say, they should not be given assistance. Compare to Halachah 8.

In this context, the Rambam writes in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh’vi’it 5:6): God declared (Leviticus 19:14): “Do not place a stumbling block before the blind.” The intent is that when someone has been blinded by desire and his bad character traits, he should not be assisted in his blindness to add to his warped conduct.

One may, however, sell these utensils to someone who is not suspect of violating the laws of the Sabbatical year, as stated in Halachah.4

A long pronged tool.

As long as there is a possibility that the person will use it for a permitted purpose, we assume that this is his intent (Avodah Zarah 15b).

See Chapter 4, Halachot 1, 2.4

The person does not have to establish a reputation as an observer of the Sabbatical year. As long as he is not known to violate its laws, one may sell to him.

For these are the amounts each person is permitted to store (Chapter 4, Halachah 24).

Even in Eretz Yisrael (Sh’vi’it 5 :7).

To sell there. In both these instances, since it is possible that the Sabbatical laws will not be broken, we do not suspect that they will be [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh’vi’it 5:7)].

As an agricultural measure, without considering the holiness of the Sabbatical year.

For otherwise, the person will certainly violate the laws of the Sabbatical year, by harvesting all the fruit of the orchard.

Where he could measure the produce of the Sabbatical year. As mentioned in Chapter 6, Halachah 3, one should not measure the produce of the Sabbatical year. Even when selling it, one should sell it by estimation.

For then his actions would obviously be considered as rendering assistance to the violation of the laws of the Sabbatical year.

The Mishnah (Sh’vi’it 5:9) states that these leniencies are granted only “because of darchei shalom (‘the paths of peace’),” i.e., to establish unity and brotherhood among the Jewish people.

For it is logical to assume that the other woman would be using the produce of the Sabbatical year and working with her would be considered as encouragement.

Even in a matter that does not involve the violation of the laws of the Sabbatical year.

And thus the Jew will receive some benefit from the work performed by the gentile in the Sabbatical year.

If, by contrast, a Jew breaks the ground of his field in the Sabbatical year, it is forbidden to hire his field from him, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 1.3

Which is not part of Eretz Yisrael and hence, is not covered by the Scriptural prohibitions against work in the Sabbatical year, but where working the land in that year was forbidden by the Rabbis, as stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 2.7

Even though the produce was grown in the Sabbatical year.

For all of these activities are permitted even in Eretz Yisrael according to Scriptural Law, it is only Rabbinic Law that prohibits them.

Chapter 6, Halachah 1.

The bracketed addition is based on the gloss of the Radbaz. Alternatively, to guard the produce in his field so that it will not be taken during the Sabbatical year (Kin ‘at Eliyahu).

For when one pays for the produce, the holiness of the produce is transferred to the money, as explained in Chapter 6, Halachot 6-.7

Thus by purchasing the produce and giving him money, one would be - at least indirectly - causing him to violate the prohibitions of the Sabbatical year. Although in many of the instances mentioned in the previous halachot, we followed the principle that as long as there was a possibility that he would not transgress, we do not restrict transactions with people who might violate the laws of the Sabbatical year, in this instances, it is very likely that a transgression will occur. Hence, we are more stringent.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh’vi’it 9:1), the Rambam mentions a different reason for the prohibition against purchasing fruit from a common person, because he is likely to have harvested them and stored them in violation of the laws of the Sabbatical year.

I.e., a lulav to use for the fulfillment of the mitzvah on Sukkot. This sale is permissible, because the laws of the Sabbatical year do not apply to a lulav, for it is part of the tree and not a fruit [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Sukkah 3:9)].

Which is a fruit and hence, may not be sold.

Which is a fruit and hence, may not be sold.

And thus, he will be paying for the lulav and not for the esrog.

Prohibition against purchasing even the slightest amount of produce from an unlearned person.

Both of these are fragrant herbs. Our translation is taken from Rav Kappach’s notes to the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh’vi’it 9: I).

These fruits and herbs grow naturally and are not cultivated. Hence, we do not assume that the person storedthem away and therefore there is room for limited leniency (Radbaz).

Which are also very pungent tasting. Our definition of terms is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma’aserot 5:9).

These types of beans and lentils are of abnormal shape and grow wild (ibid.).

Since these species are not usually eaten as food, they are not bound by the Scriptural prohibitions of terumah and the tithes (Hilchot Terumah 2:3). Hence there is also room for leniency with regard to the Sabbatical year.

Whose reputation vis-a-vis the observance of the Sabbatical year has not been established.

The reason that it is forbidden to purchase flax from such a person is that flax seeds are sometimes considered as food. Even though the flax has been combed to some degree, there is still the possibility that it contains some seeds that are useful as food.

At this stage of processing, the flax will never be used as food.

As the Rambam states in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot 4:10), generally when two prohibitions are of the same degree of severity, if one is considered suspect to violate one, he is considered as suspect to violate the other. Nevertheless, this instance is an exception for the reasons stated by the Rambam.

Literally, the Rambam’s words mean “the place,” recalling Deuteronomy 12:11: “the place which God... will choose to cause His name to dwell.” Note the usage of this term in Hilchot Ma’aser Sheni 2:1. This stringency does not apply with regard to the produce of the Sabbatical year which can be eaten in any place.

Le., even after its redemption, it remains holy (Chapter 6, Halachah 6). In contrast, once the produce of the second tithe is redeemed, it is considered as ordinary produce (Hilchot Ma’aser Sheni 4:1).

As stated in Hilchot Sha ‘ar Avot HaTumah 8:1

Since the Scriptural prohibitions are more severe, we assume that the person will respect them.

As stated in the notes to Hilchot Ma’aser 12:17, the Ra’avad does not accept this principle and maintains that if someone is considered as suspect regarding a particular issue, he is not accepted. as a judge or witness concerning such matters. The Kessef Mishneh supports the Rambam’s view.

I.e., we fear that they will not remove the produce of the Sabbatical year from their possession at the time of biyur, but instead will store it and sell it afterwards.

At the hand of heaven (Hilchot Terumah 6:5-6).

And given to the priests. They must partake of it as if it were terumah, as stated in ibid.13:1. As explained there, this act is necessary in order to enable non-priests to partake of the entire mixture. And since we permit the entire mixture to non-priests, we do not suspect that the priests will keep the produce beyond the biyur.

As stated in ibid. 13:2, when terumah falls into less than 100 se’ah of ordinary produce, the presence of the terumah is not nullified. Instead, the entire mixture is considered as miduma and is sold to the priests as if it were terumah (which is sold at significantly lower price than ordinary produce). In this instance, we do not follow that ruling, because of the suspicion stated by the Rambam.

People who fatten animals.

Bran· is used to provide body for paint and also to fatten cattle.

The rationale is that the prohibition against benefiting from sefichin is only Rabbinic in origin. Hence, we do not employ a safeguard because of a doubtful situation.

As stated in ibid. 13:2, when terumah falls into less than 100 se’ah of ordinary produce, the presence of the terumah is not nullified. Instead, the entire mixture is considered as miduma and is sold to the priests as if it were terumah (which is sold at significantly lower price than ordinary produce). In this instance, we do not follow that ruling, because of the suspicion stated by the Rambam.

The Radbaz maintains that this is speaking of individuals whom we merely suspect of violating the laws of the Sabbatical year. If we know with certainty that they violate those laws, we may not take any produce from them.

We do not suspect that a person will do a mitzvah - giving charity - in a manner that will cause a transgression causing another Jew to violate the laws governing produce of the Sabbatical year [Jerusalem Talmud (Sh’vi’it 8:2)].

In these instances as well, we do not suspect that the person intentionally gave the money received for the produce for the Sabbatical year (or eggs received for that produce). Instead, we suspect that because he was an unlearned person, he was not aware of the relevant laws (Radbaz).

The borrower must have such produce in his possession. Otherwise, it is forbidden to borrow the produce as a safeguard to the prohibition against taking interest (ibid.).

This leniency is granted only as consideration for the needs of the poor (ibid.). He may not purchase it from him, for in that instance, the money would become money received for produce of the Sabbatical year. We are afraid that the unlearned person will not purchase food with that money and eat it before the obligation of biyur takes effect.

They should not be repaid with the produce of the Sabbatical year, because the produce of the Sabbatical year should not be given to an unlearned person. We do not say the produce with which he repays him is produce received for produce of the Sabbatical year, because the exchange was not made in that year.