Daf Ditty Moed Katan 2: Irrigation

Art: Karim Rushdy

Last night
the rain
spoke to me
slowly, saying,

what joy
to come falling
out of the brisk cloud,
to be happy again

1
 in a new way
on the earth!
That’s what it said
as it dropped,

smelling of iron,
and vanished
like a dream of the ocean
into the branches

and the grass below.

Then it was over.
The sky cleared.
I was standing

under a tree.
The tree was a tree
with happy leaves,
and I was myself,

and there were stars in the sky

that were also themselves
at the moment,
at which moment

my right hand
was holding my left hand
which was holding the tree
which was filled with stars

2
 and the soft rain—
imagine! imagine!
the wild and wondrous journeys
still to be ours.

Last Night the Rain Spoke To Me, Mary Oliver

3
MISHNA: One may irrigate a field that requires irrigation on the intermediate days of a
Festival as well as during the Sabbatical Year, both from a newly emerged spring that began
to flow only during the Festival, and from a spring that did not just emerge and that has been
flowing for some time. However, one may not irrigate a field with rainwater collected in a
cistern, a procedure that requires excessive exertion, or with water drawn with a shadoof [kilon],
a lever used to raise water with a bucket from deep down in a well.

And one may not construct circular ditches around the bases of grapevines on the intermediate
days of a Festival. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: One may not construct a new water channel
during the intermediate days of a Festival or during the Sabbatical Year. And the Rabbis say:
One may construct a new water channel during the Sabbatical Year, and one may repair
damaged water channels during the intermediate days of a Festival.

In addition to performing labor on one’s own property in order to avoid financial loss, it is also
permitted to perform labor on the intermediate days of a Festival for the public welfare: One may
repair damaged water cisterns that are in the public domain and clean them out by removing
the dirt and sediment that accumulated there; one may repair roads, streets, and ritual baths;
and one may tend to all other public needs. So too, one may mark graves to inform the public
of their ritual impurity, and inspectors may even go out to uproot the shoots of prohibited diverse
kinds [kilayim] that grew in the fields during the rainy season.

Summary

4
Introduction1
The first mishnah of Moed Katan deals with watering a field during the festival. Watering a field
is sometimes necessary or the crops will be lost. Therefore, watering in these types of situations
tends to be permitted. However, watering is also quite laborious and hence some types of watering
are prohibited.

They may water an irrigated field during the festival [week] or in the sabbatical
year, both from a newly-emerging spring and from a spring that is not just
emerged.

“An irrigated field” refers to a field that cannot subsist on rainwater alone. Therefore, the mishnah
allows one to water it on the festival. During the sabbatical year it is forbidden to work the land.
However, irrigating a field is not considered to be working the field, as is plowing or planting.
Nevertheless, the rabbis did prohibit watering during the sabbatical year, but they did not prohibit
watering a field that needed to be irrigated. Certainly the field may be watered through an old
spring, whose water has already been directed at the field. The mishnah says that it may be watered
even from a new spring, despite the extra work of directing the water to the field.

1
https://www.sefaria.org/Moed_Katan.2a.1?lang=bi&p2=Mishnah_Moed_Katan.1.1&lang2=bi&w2=English%20Explanation%2
0of%20Mishnah&lang3=en

5
But they may not water the field with water from stored rain, and not with a
swipe and bucket.

Carrying water to the field from a cistern of stored rainwater is a lot of work. Therefore they are
not allowed to water the field in this way. They are also not allowed to water using a method called
“swipe and bucket,” which was a type of sweeping pump used to get water out of deep cisterns.
This was also considered too laborious. We can see that first the mishnah allows watering these
types of fields because otherwise the crops will be lost. It then limits that by saying that some
labors are prohibited because one shouldn’t be doing so much work on the festival.

And they may not make small ditches around the vines.

Finally, one may not make water ditches around vines. These ditches were made so that they would
fill up and the water would seep into the roots. Again, digging these ditches was considered too
much work for it to be permitted on the festival.

Moed Katan, Introduction to Moed Katan2

Tractate Moed Katan1 deals mainly with the halakhot pertaining to the intermediate days of the
Festival, which are often referred to as simply: The Festivals, in rabbinic literature.2 The discussion
of these halakhot leads to a comprehensive treatment of two other fundamental areas of halakha:
The halakhot of mourning and the halakhot of ostracism.

Combining the halakhot of days of rejoicing with the halakhot of days of sadness in one tractate is
seemingly contradictory, yet there exists a double connection between the two topics. First, there
is a practical halakhic connection between these areas of halakha, as the labors that are prohibited
on the intermediate days of the Festival are similar to the labors that are prohibited both during the
period of mourning and with regard to one who is ostracized, as he must act as if he is in mourning.
It is reasonable, then, to discuss these prohibitions in the same context. Second, there is an intrinsic
connection between the halakhot of the intermediate days of the Festival and the halakhot of
mourning in that they are derived in a parallel manner.

The essential elements of both the intermediate days of the Festival and the period of mourning
are mentioned in the Torah, and some of the broader details are alluded to as well. However, they
do not appear as explicit commandments or obligations, and consequently are treated in talmudic
literature as rabbinic commandments3 that are part of the oral tradition. This is the case despite the
fact that they are mentioned in the written Torah and were practiced in the time of Moses. Even
the Sages who maintain that these halakhot have a basis in Torah law agree that with regard to the
specific details, the Bible delegated them to the Sages.4 As a result, the halakhot discussed in this
tractate are not based on the objective categories that characterize Torah law, but like most rabbinic
commandments are dependent on circumstances and relative to the situation.

2
The William Davidson Talmud:
https://www.sefaria.org/Moed_Katan.2a.1?lang=bi&p2=Introductions_to_the_Babylonian_Talmud%2C_Moed_Katan%2C_Intro
duction_to_Moed_Katan&lang2=bi

6
This means that there is a basic difference between the labor prohibitions on the intermediate days
of the Festival and those on Shabbat and the first or last days of the Festival. On Shabbat and Yom
Kippur, “all labor” (Exodus 20:10), i.e., all creative, physical labor as defined by the Sages, is
prohibited, and similar prohibitions apply to Festivals with a few exceptions, one of which is labor
performed for the purpose of food preparation. In contrast, on the intermediate days of the Festival
and during the period of mourning there is no objective prohibition against labor in its usual
halakhic definition. Rather, the prohibition is against work, which is defined based on the amount
of effort, exertion, or professional expertise that is involved in a given activity.

Additionally, these halakhot of prohibited work are not absolute, as their main function is to
preserve the unique nature of the day in order to ensure that it is not treated like an ordinary
weekday. They therefore include certain leniencies such as, inter alia, in cases of incurred loss.
These are not objective categories that depend on the nature of the labor, but rather they are
categories that depend on the relationship between the person performing the action and the labor
he needs to perform. Thus, on the intermediate days of the Festival one is permitted to do work
that is specifically related to and necessary for the Festival. However, he may not treat these days
as ordinary weekdays by performing labor that is unrelated to its celebration.

It is the Sages who determine the criteria of what is prohibited on these days. They consider issues
such as when does a certain labor constitute degrading the Festival by treating it as a non-sacred
day, and when, due to a specific need or for the purpose of enjoyment of the Festival, is it permitted
to perform that labor? These same considerations play a role in determining what is permitted
during the period of mourning. These days do not have a fundamental prohibition against labor,
but rather one has an obligation to direct his attention to mourning and not turn them into ordinary
days of routine where he is occupied with his normal work and occupations and cannot give
appropriate attention to his mourning.

As there are no comprehensive categories governing the prohibition of labor on these days, the
Sages were forced to establish many isolated halakhot that address specific situations. The Gemara
in one place calls these: Sterile halakhot,5 in that each instance must be addressed separately: Does
this activity involve a desecration of the Festival either due to excessive exertion or by resembling
an activity performed on weekdays that would make this day seem ordinary and routine?
Additional considerations include the indispensable needs of the individual and of society, and
considerations such as the unrecoverable loss that will be incurred by not working on the Festival.
Therefore, this tractate contains many individualized rulings which do not fit under one rubric.

Due to the fact that so many activities were permitted, the Sages wondered if it would not be better
to simply cancel the prohibition of work on the intermediate days of the Festival completely. As
these celebratory days did not have any specific ritual obligations, there was concern that they
would turn into sole days of idleness.6 In certain places the Sages in fact drastically limited the
scope of the prohibitions of the intermediate days of the Festival.7

In a similar vein, the halakhot of mourning, despite the fact that many of them are mentioned in
the Torah and books of the prophets, were never formulated as obligatory commandments. Rather,
the Sages consolidated all of the traditions and early customs8 within general parameters. The
halakhot of mourning establish a specific and defined framework for the expression of sorrow and

7
mourning, the role of which is to provide an opportunity to feel and recognize the extent of the
loss, while at the same time limiting the flow of emotions so that they do not destabilize the
progression of life. The exemption of acute mourners from all positive commandments as well as
the prohibition of labor for all mourners was intended to allow them to deal with the burial of the
deceased in a proper and respectful way, as well as to provide time and space for thinking about
and feeling the loss of the deceased, expressing sorrow over this loss, and receiving comfort from
others.

Another aspect of the halakhot of mourning involves the public expression of the pain and loss:
The mourner is required to rend his clothes, sit on the ground, and overturn his bed. Furthermore,
the mourner is required to refrain from both pleasure and expressions of human grandeur: The
prohibition against taking haircuts and doing laundry is an expression of the former, and the
prohibition against donning phylacteries during the first day of mourning is an example of the
latter.

The halakhot of ostracism, which are explored in depth in this tractate, are related to the halakhot
of mourning. Excommunication and ostracism are not simply punishments involving social
isolation; they are a form of banishment that requires one to act as though in mourning. Many of
these halakhot are derived from and connected to those of a leper, who in a certain respect is
ostracized and in mourning as well.

There is another point of contact between the halakhot of mourning and those of the intermediate
days of the Festival: When the period of mourning overlaps with Shabbat and Festivals. This raises
the difficulty of the conflict between the commandments of rejoicing and delight on these days
with the obligation to feel sorrow and mourning. Essentially, it was determined that the general
obligations of taking delight in Shabbat and rejoicing on the Festival cancel the obligation of
outward expression of personal mourning.

There are three chapters in tractate Moed Katan. The first two mainly discuss the halakhot of the
intermediate days of the Festival, while the third focuses on the halakhot of mourning, ostracism,
and excommunication. Although this division is not absolute, as the Talmud often merges the
discussion of various topics, each chapter has specific topics to which the discussion therein is
dedicated:

Chapter One discusses the activities that are prohibited during the course of the Festival, both
those that are prohibited because they are considered work and those that would minimize the joy
of the Festival.

Notes
1 In earlier generations, this tractate was referred to only as Moed, but it was changed to Moed Katan in order to distinguish between
the tractate and the order Moed. In many earlier sources, Moed Katan is referred to as Mashkin, its opening word.

2 The statement in the mishna that one who disparages the Festivals has no part in the World-to-Come (Avot 3:11) should be
understood to refer to the intermediate days of the Festivals and is a condemnation of one who acts as though they are ordinary
weekdays.

8
3 There is a dispute among the early commentaries as to whether the halakhot of the intermediate days of the Festival and the
halakhot of mourning contain an element that is based on Torah law, or if their authority is entirely by rabbinic law.

4 Hagiga 18a.

5 Moed Katan 12a.

6 Jerusalem Talmud, Moed Katan 2:3.

7 See B.M. Levin, Compendium of Differences in Custom between the Land of Israel, and Babylonia. Jerusalem: 1942 (Hebrew).

8 Some of these are mentioned in the book of Genesis, chapters 23 and 50.

Moed Katan, Introduction to Perek I

These are the appointed seasons of the Lord, which you shall proclaim to be holy convocations, to
bring an offering made by fire unto the Lord, a burnt-offering, and a meal-offering, a sacrifice, and
drink-offerings, each on its own day. (Leviticus 23:37)

And on the fifteenth day of this month shall be a feast; seven days shall unleavened bread be eaten.
The first day shall be a holy convocation; you shall do no manner of servile work. (Numbers 28:17–
18)

And on the fifteenth day of the seventh month you shall have a holy convocation; you shall do no
manner of servile work, and you shall keep a feast unto the Lord seven days. (Numbers 29:12)

The unique status of the intermediate days of the Festival, in that they are not full-fledged Festivals
but at the same time are not ordinary weekdays, requires specific categories and halakhic
definitions with regard to which activities are prohibited and which are permitted on those days.
The central question clarified in this chapter is: Which labors are prohibited or permitted on the
intermediate days of the Festival?

It is clear that there is no absolute prohibition against performing labor on these days, and therefore
one cannot issue a blanket ban on all work during this time. On the other hand, it is necessary to
maintain the special and holy nature of these days, as they are called “appointed seasons,” and
therefore should not be desecrated by being treated as workdays. As all agree that there are no
clear principles set out in the Torah with regard to these issues, and the Bible delegated them to
the Sages (Hagiga 18a), it is necessary to clarify the criteria the Sages established with regard to
the work that is prohibited or permitted on the intermediate days of the Festival, while comparing
them to similar areas of halakha such as the agricultural labors of the Sabbatical Year.

Another aspect that requires explication is how to achieve the sanctity and celebration of the
intermediate days of the Festival. As these weekdays occur within a period of festivity, nested
between two Festivals, the commandment: “And you shall rejoice in your feast” (Deuteronomy
16:14) applies to them as well. This principle determines which activities should be avoided during
the intermediate days of the Festival due to the fact that they interfere with the holiness and
celebration of the time. This is either because the activity disrupts the rejoicing of the Festival by

9
introducing other components that distract from the essence of the day or because it contains
elements of grief and mourning that are inappropriate for times of celebration.

The elucidation of these issues is the topic of this chapter.

Moed Katan, Summary of Perek I

Despite the fact that the Sages stated that the halakhot of the Festival are sterile, i.e., isolated, and
may not be learned one from the other (Moed Katan 12a), there are clear criteria that can be used
to determine which activities are prohibited or permitted on the intermediate days of the Festival.

Among the activities permitted on the intermediate days of the Festival are those that are defined
as incurring financial loss, i.e., refraining from this work will cause significant loss, and therefore
the Sages permitted them on the intermediate days of the Festival.

Another category of permitted activity on the intermediate days of the Festival includes labors that
are not performed by craftsmen, i.e., those that do not require a specific skill, or that are not
performed in the manner of the craftsmen. Additionally, an activity that is necessary for the
celebration of the Festival would be permitted on the intermediate days of the Festival. In general,
the Sages prohibited labors that involved significant exertion, especially those that were directly
related to agricultural labor.

Because there was often a clash between the various criteria delineated above, the Sages
established individualized rulings on a case-by-case basis. In each case, in order to determine the
halakha they applied the principles that had been set in place.

With regard to the injunction to rejoice on the Festival, it was concluded that one should not do
anything on the intermediate days of the Festival that would likely lead to distress. Thus, a priest
may not examine a leper on the intermediate days of the Festival, and one may not make public
eulogies during this period. Out of a similar concern for the commandment to rejoice on the
Festival, the Sages prohibited marrying during this time, as this would impinge upon the
preparations for the Festival as well as introduce a conflicting source of celebration.

10
 Irrigating the Fields both Literally and Figuratively

Masechet Moed Kattan is devoted to the halacha of Intermediate Festival days.3

Because of related halacha around Shemita, or Sabbatical years, we will also learn about those
related conversations. Today we begin this exploration with a Mishna that teaches us about
limitations on irrigation on Intermediate Festival Days. It also tells us about public work, both on
those days and on other special days.

We are told that we can only use certain types of spring water to irrigate. Further, we can only
collect or carry that water in particular ways. Why? Because irrigating is watering, and watering
is close to the sins (on Shabbat) of sowing and of reaping. The act of watering moves the soil, just
as in those two acts. However, if the plant will die without that water, we are permitted to irrigate
- but only using a naturally occurring spring. Clearly the rabbis are attempting to reduce the
possibility of intense physical labour on the Intermediate Festival Days.

Our Mishna also speaks about work done for the public - road repair, bathhouse repair, etc. This
work is permitted, we are told. A clarification is offered: those repairs should be done only for
things that service our physical needs. Any other work can - and should - wait.

I noticed two places in our daf where irrigation was compared with a physical love affair between
husband and wife. In both examples, the man is said to be the dry field and the woman is the
water, satiating and relieving him of his thirst. In one of those examples, the irrigation system is
said to be like a virgin bride. I have no difficulty with this beautiful, sensual imagery. These

3
http://dafyomibeginner.blogspot.com/2014/08/

11
metaphors continually speak to the male as the protagonist, the subject; the female is someone who
services her husband. Again, I have no difficulty with that concept - except that in my reading so
far, this caring behaviour has not been reciprocated. But perhaps I am asking too much of my
ancestors of 2000 year ago.

Rav Avrohom Adler writes:4

(There is a matter of dispute among the Rishonim if the prohibition against performing labor on
Chol Hamoed (the intermediate days of Pesach and Sukkos) is Biblical (Rashi) or Rabbinic
(Tosfos). There are many different categories of labor that is permitted on Chol Hamoed.
The first Mishna discusses the permissibility of performing labor on Chol Hamoed when
otherwise; the person will suffer a substantial loss (Chagigah 18a). Even in such cases, one cannot
perform labor that involves excessive exertion.)

The Mishna states: One is permitted to water an irrigated field (one that is located on a mountain
and cannot survive on rainfall alone) on Chol Hamoed and during Shemitah (the Sabbatical year,
when generally, it is forbidden to work the field). This may be done whether the water is from a
newly emerged spring (where the walls are not very strong and there is a concern that they will
collapse, and he will repair them in a manner that is prohibited to do on Chol Hamoed) or from an
older one. One may not water this field from a pool of rainwater or from a well and he may not
dig ditches surrounding the grapevines (these are all forbidden on Chol Hamoed because they
involve excessive exertion).

Rabbi Elozar ben Azaryah says: One may not create a new irrigation canal during Chol Hamoed
or Shemitah, but the Chachamim maintain that this is permitted during Shemitah. One may repair
a damaged canal on Chol Hamoed.

(Performing labor for the sake of the public is also permitted on Chol Hamoed.)

One may make repairs to the water containers in the public domain and clean them (from the mud
and small stones that accumulate in them). One may repair the roads, streets, and ritual baths, and
they may do all public needs, and they may mark the graves, and they may go out to inspect the
fields for kilayim (the prohibition against planting together different species of vegetables, fruit,
or seeds – agents of beis din would be sent out at this time to warn the people to uproot any shoots
of other seeds that appear among the grain). (2a)

[The Mishna had stated: One is permitted to water an irrigated field whether the water is from a
newly emerged spring or from an older one.] The Gemora asks: Now, one might argue that after
having permitted watering from a newly emerging spring, where the walls of the spring may come
to collapse; need further mention be made of drawing from an older spring, where it is unlikely
that its walls will collapse?

4
http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Moed_Katan_2.pdf

12
The Gemora answers that it is necessary to mention the latter; for if the Tanna had mentioned only
the newly emerging spring, I might have said that only here, where it is for an irrigation field, is it
permitted, but not for a rain-watered field, because the walls of the spring may come to collapse;
but from a spring that is not newly emerging, where it is unlikely tthat its walls may come to
collapse, I might say that even a rain-watered field may be watered; therefore the Tanna informs
us that there is no difference; be it a spring newly emerging, or a spring not newly emerging, an
irrigation field may be watered from it, but a rain-watered field may not be.

The Gemora asks: And from where do we know that the term ‘beis hashalchin’ denotes a ‘thirsty’
field (as it needs to be irrigated)? The Gemora answers: It is written: When you were faint and
weary, and we render (in the Targum) the word ‘faint’ by meshalhei.

The Gemora asks: And from where do we know that the term ‘beis haba’al’ denotes a ‘settled’
field (as it is satisfied with rain-water, and has no need for irrigation)? The Gemora answers: It is
written: For as a young man lives [yival] with a virgin, so shall your children live in you, and we
render (in the Targum): Behold, as a young man settles down with a virgin, so will your children
settle in you.

The Gemora states: The Mishna rules that it is permitted to water an irrigated field on Chol
Hamoed whether the water is from a newly emerged spring or from an older one; however, it is
forbidden to water a rain-watered field because the water is not needed to prevent damage to the
crops.

The Gemora asks: Who is the Tanna that holds that it is permitted to perform labor on Chol
Hamoed only if it will prevent one from suffering a substantial loss; however, it will be forbidden
to perform labor for the sake of making a profit or to cause a benefit; and even when it is permitted
to perform labor, it will only be allowed if there is no excessive exertion involved.

Rav Huna answers: It is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov. He states in a Mishna below
(6b): One is permitted to draw water from one tree to another on Chol Hamoed by creating a path
from the tree that has water underneath it however, one is forbidden to water his entire rain-watered
field (since the watering is beneficial and not to prevent a loss.)

The Gemora asks: It is evident that Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov maintains that one cannot perform
labor on Chol Hamoed if it is only beneficial and not to prevent a loss, but where do we see that
he holds that there is a prohibition against excessive exertion even in situations where he is
performing labor to prevent a loss?

Rav Pappa answers: The Tanna of the Mishna is Rabbi Yehudah. We have learned in a braisa: One
may water from a freshly emerging spring, even for a rainwatered field. This is the opinion of
Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehudah says: One may only water an irrigation field that has dried up. Rabbi
Elozar ben Azarya disagrees and says: Neither this nor that (whether the old spring dried up or
whether it didn’t). Furthermore, Rabbi Yehudah says: One should not clean out his spring of water
and use it to water his garden or his ruin on Chol Hamoed.

13
Abaye explains Rabbi Yehudah’s viewpoint: One may water an irrigation field if the spring of
water that was used until now to water the field has dried up and now there is a new spring of water
which can be used (stopping the watering of the seeds will cause damage). Rabbi Elozar ben
Azaryah maintains that there is no difference if the springs dried up or not; in both cases, a newly
emerging spring may not be used.

[It emerges from Rabbi Yehudah that one cannot perform labor on Chol Hamoed for the sake of a
benefit because he holds that it is only permitted to water the irrigated field if it has previously
been watered; he also maintains that one cannot use excessive exertion even to prevent a loss and
that is why he ruled that one cannot clean out the spring of water to water his garden.]

The Gemora challenges Abaye’s proof: Perhaps Rabbi Yehudah would hold that an old spring of
water, where we are not concerned that the walls will collapse, may be used to water even a rain-
watered field. This would be inconsistent with our Mishna which ruled that a rain-watered field
may never be watered.

The Gemora answers: That cannot be Rabbi Yehudah’s opinion, for if so, our Mishna would not
be following the opinion of any Tanna. The Gemora concludes that Rabbi Yehudah does not make
a distinction between a new spring and an old one. Both springs may be used to water an irrigated
field, but they may not be used to water a rain-watered field.

(The Gemora discusses a halachah pertaining to Shabbos, which will be relevant to our discussion
later.)

The Gemora asks: On account of which category of labor shall we legally warn a person who
weeds or waters seeds on Shabbos? (There are thirtynine main categories of labor that are
forbidden on Shabbos and in order for one to be liable to receive a punishment for intentionally
performing a prohibited labor on Shabbos; he must receive a legal warning prior to performing the
act not to perform this specific labor.) Rabbah said: He is warned not to plow. Just as plowing
softens the earth, watering and weeding soften the earth. Rav Yosef said: He is warned not to plant.
Just as planting causes the produce to grow, watering and weeding the seeds cause the produce to
grow.

Abaye disagrees and maintains that he is actually transgressing both plowing and planting and
therefore, he can be legally warned on account of either one. And if you will argue that wherever
there are two forbidden labors (in one single act), he is liable for only one (and therefore, there
cannot be a choice as to what to warn him for) – that cannot be, for Rav Kahana said: If one prunes
and he needs the wood, he is liable to bring two chatas offerings. He is liable for planting and for
harvesting. The Gemora notes that this (Abaye’s challenge) is indeed a difficulty.

Rav Yosef asked Rabbah from the following braisa: One who pulls out weeds or covers kilayim
seeds with earth receives lashes. Rabbi Akiva said: Even one who merely maintains them. Now,
this is understandable according to my view, as I say that one who weeds is to be warned under
the category of planting, which explains the penalty, because planting is explicitly forbidden in
connection with kilayim; but according to you, who say that he is to be warned under the category

14
of plowing, is plowing forbidden in connection with kilayim? Rabbah said to him, He incurs lashes
under the category of maintaining them.

The Gemora asks: But surely, since the last clause states: Rabbi Akiva said: Even one who merely
maintains them. May we not infer that according to the Tanna Kamma, the penalty is not on
account of maintaining them?

The Gemora answers: The entire statement is to be taken as recording Rabbi Akiva's view, and the
latter clause is explanatory: On what ground does one who pulls out weeds or covers kilayim seeds
with earth receive lashes? It is because he comes under the category of maintaining, for Rabbi
Akiva said: Even one who merely maintains them.

The Gemora asks: What is Rabbi Akiva's reason? The Gemora answers: It is taught in a braisa:
You shall not plant your field with kilayim. This tells me about planting; from where is the
prohibition against maintaining (that which is already planted) known? It is from the instructive
wording kilayim in your field, no.

The Mishna had stated: One is permitted to water an irrigated field on Chol Hamoed and during
Shemitah.

The Gemora asks: It is understandable why this is allowed on Chol Hamoed but not during
Shemitah? It is forbidden to perform labor on Chol Hamoed because it is considered exertion and
where there is a financial loss, the Rabbis were lenient and permitted it. In regard to Shemitah,
where there is a Biblical prohibition against planting and plowing, why would one be allowed to
water an irrigated field?

Abaye answers: Our Mishna follows the opinion of Rebbe who maintains that Shemitah nowadays
is only a Rabbinic injunction. For it was taught in a braisa: Rebbe says: “And this is the word of
shemitah (relinquishing), relinquish.” The verse is teaching about two types of relinquishing. One
is relinquishing possession of the land, and one is relinquishing loans. When relinquishing the land
is applicable, one must also relinquish loans. If it is not applicable, one does not have to relinquish
loans. Why not derive that in a place where relinquishing the land applies, so must relinquishing
loans apply etc.? The verse states, “For shemitah was called to Hashem,” implying that
relinquishing loans applies anywhere.

Rava answers: Even if Shemitah nowadays is subject to the Biblical prohibition, only the main
categories (av melochah) are Biblically forbidden and not the secondary labors (toldos).

WHY MOED KATAN?

What is the meaning in the name “Moed Katan”? The Torah refers to the sun as the meor hagadol
and the moon as meor hakatan. Rashi cites from Chazal that they were both created the same size,
but the moon complained and said that two kings cannot use the same crown and therefore the
moon was diminished. The question is asked: It is well known that the moon does not have any

15
intrinsic light source of its own, but rather it is only reflecting the sun light. What is the meaning
that they were created equally?

The Gemora Bava Metziah (12b) states: An adult who is supported by his father is regarded as a
katan, a minor and a katan who is not provided for by the father, but rather supports himself, he is
referred to as an adult, a gadol. It emerges that the term gadol means that he has from himself and
katan means that he receives from someone else. Reb Aryeh Tzvi Frummer answers that that this
was precisely the punishment to the moon; the moon did not decrease in size but rather its
retribution was that it will not contain its own light and it will only provide light that it receives
from the reflection of the sun. Initially, the sun and the moon were both gedolim since they both
had an intrinsic light source; afterwards, the moon became a katan because it could not provide
light by itself.

The Zohar in Breishis seems to explain in an identical manner. The Beis Yosef (O”C 31) cites the
Zohar in Shir Hashirim that Chol Hamoed is akin to the moon; it does not have its own sanctity
but rather it receives kedusha from the Yom Tov. It is for this reason why the name of this
Mesechta, which contains many halachos regarding Chol Hamoed, is called Moed Katan.

INCIDENT WITH CHAFETZ CHAIM5

Reb Moshe Bik used to say over the following incident: It once happened in Radin that there were
several men that passed away one after the other in a very short span of time. They called a
gathering to contemplate as to what was the message that Hashem was sending them. The Chafetz
Chaim arose and proclaimed that the Mesechta Moed Katan is complaining to the Ribino shel
Olam that it is a Mesechta that the Yeshivos do not learn. Only mourners learn this Mesechta and
that is why many people were passing away.

COMPARING THE LAWS OF CHOL HA'MO'ED TO THE LAWS OF

SHEMITAH

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:6

The Mishnah states that both on Chol ha'Mo'ed and during the Shemitah year, one may water a
Beis ha'Shalchin (an irrigated field which does not have its own natural water source) with water
from a spring, but one may not water a Beis ha'Ba'al (a field naturally irrigated by rainwater or
springwater). However, one may not water a Beis ha'Shalchin on Chol ha'Mo'ed with rainwater or
with water from a cistern.

The Gemara explains that the reasoning which underlies the laws in the Mishnah is that on Chol
ha'Mo'ed, Melachah is prohibited unless it is needed for a Davar ha'Aved (to prevent a loss), in

5
Sefer Meir Einei Yisroel 2: P. 239
6
https://www.dafyomi.co.il/mkatan/insites/mo-dt-002.htm

16
which case the Rabanan permitted it. However, the Rabanan permitted doing a Melachah for the
sake of a Davar ha'Aved only when the Melachah does not involve excessive toil (Tircha Yeseira).
This reasoning explains the laws in the Mishnah as they apply to Chol ha'Mo'ed: one is permitted
to water a Beis ha'Shalchin on Chol ha'Mo'ed because without that Melachah the field might dry
up completely, as it has no natural water source. One is prohibited to water a Beis ha'Ba'al because
watering that type of field is not a Davar ha'Aved; a Beis ha'Ba'al will not dry up if one does not
water it, as it has its own natural source of water.

This reasoning also explains why one is permitted to water a Beis ha'Shalchin only from a spring,
but not from rainwater or from a cistern. Although watering a Beis ha'Shalchin is a Davar ha'Aved,
watering it from a cistern involves strenuous work and thus is prohibited.

(a) However, this reasoning explains only the laws as they relate to Melachah on Chol ha'Mo'ed.
It does not explain how these laws relate to Shevi'is. During Shevi'is, there is no reason to
differentiate between a Melachah done for a Davar ha'Aved and one that is not done for a Davar
ha'Aved. If watering a field is a Melachah which is forbidden during Shevi'is, it should be
forbidden in both a Beis ha'Shalchin and a Beis ha'Ba'al. If, on the other hand, watering a field is
not forbidden during Shevi'is, it should be permitted in both types of fields. Why in the Shemitah
year is there a difference between watering a Beis ha'Shalchin and watering a Beis ha'Ba'al?
(b) The same question may be asked about the prohibition against doing a Melachah, even for a
Davar ha'Aved, which involves excessive toil (Tircha Yeseira). If the Melachah of watering a field
is permitted during Shevi'is, why should it be forbidden when it involves excessive toil? There is
no prohibition against exerting oneself excessively during Shevi'is. Only certain forms of
Melachah which involve working the ground are forbidden during Shevi'is; all other forms of
Melachah are permitted, and a person may put forth as much exertion as he wants. Why should
the concern of Tircha Yeseira prohibit one from watering from a cistern during Shevi'is?

(a) The Rishonim offer different answers for why there is a difference between watering a Beis
ha'Shalchin and a Beis ha'Ba'al during Shevi'is, if watering the ground is permitted during Shevi'is.
RASHI (as cited by TOSFOS to 6b, DH Marbitzin, and the NIMUKEI YOSEF) says that one
indeed is permitted to water both types of fields during Shevi'is. When the Mishnah says that one
may water only a Beis ha'Shalchin and not a Beis ha'Ba'al, it refers only to Chol ha'Mo'ed but not
to Shevi'is. As Rava says (end of 2b), one is permitted to water any type of field during Shevi'is
because the Torah's prohibition against Avodas ha'Karka (working the land) on Shevi'is does not
include Hashka'ah (watering the land). Only certain forms of Toldos of Melachos, but not all
forms, are prohibited mid'Oraisa.

Although the Beraisa (3a) notes that other Toldos are prohibited mid'Rabanan, Rashi asserts that
watering is not one of them. The Beraisa distinguishes between Toldos which are prohibited
mid'Rabanan because they involve farming-type labor, and others which do not involve "labor."

The NIMUKEI YOSEF explains that watering plants is not considered a "labor" because it is
done constantly for the upkeep of the field. A "labor" is an act done only on occasion in order to
bring about a desired effect. Since watering must be done regularly it is not considered a labor, a
"Melachah Chashuvah" (rather, it is just a "daily chore"). This is evident from the Beraisa (3a)

17
itself which provides a long list of the Toldos which are prohibited mid'Rabanan but does not
include watering among them.

(According to Abaye, who says (2b) that the Mishnah which permits watering a field during
Shevi'is refers only to Shevi'is d'Rabanan, obviously even Rashi would agree that this allowance
applies only to watering a Beis ha'Shalchin during Shevi'is. Since the prohibition against working
the land during Shevi'is is mid'Rabanan, the Rabanan permitted watering the ground only for a
Davar ha'Aved.)

TOSFOS (6b), however, mentions another opinion which asserts that the Mishnah permits
watering only a Beis ha'Shalchin during Shevi'is (apparently even according to Rava). Although
watering fields is permitted mid'Oraisa during Shevi'is, the Rabanan prohibited it when there is no
loss involved (like the other Toldos which are prohibited mid'Rabanan). This is also the view of
the RITVA who says that watering a field which is not a Beis ha'Shalchin and is not a Davar
ha'Aved is prohibited mid'Rabanan according to the Mishnah. This also seems to be the opinion
of the RAMBAM.

(b) Why, though, should a Melachah which involves excessive Tircha be prohibited during
Shevi'is? The NIMUKEI YOSEF and RASHI (as cited by the Ritva) write that indeed there is no
prohibition of excessive Tircha on Shevi'is and it is obvious that the prohibition against watering
a field from a cistern applies only to Chol ha'Mo'ed and not to Shevi'is. This is also clear from the
words of the Yerushalmi.

However, the RITVA argues and says that the simple reading of the Mishnah implies that the
Halachos apply equally to Chol ha'Mo'ed and to Shevi'is. It must be that although the Torah does
not prohibit acts of excessive Tircha on Shevi'is, the Chachamim prohibited watering in a manner
which involves Tircha. They equated Shevi'is with Chol ha'Mo'ed for matters that involve working
the ground.

(How does the Ritva reconcile his explanation with the very next line in the Mishnah which records
a clear distinction between Shevi'is and Chol ha'Mo'ed? The Chachamim rule that during Shevi'is
one may dig a water channel ("Amah"), but on Chol ha'Mo'ed one may only fix a water channel
and not make a new one, presumably because that act is an excessive Tircha. The Chachamim
clearly maintain that a Melachah for a Davar ha'Aved which involves excessive Tircha is
prohibited on Chol ha'Mo'ed but permitted on Shevi'is, contrary to what the Ritva says.

The answer is that it is evident from the Gemara later (4b) that the reason why a water channel
may be dug during Shevi'is according to the Chachamim is because it does not involve working
the soil in order to cultivate produce. One simply makes a canal through which water will
eventually be able to flow; he does not water or plant the field at that moment. (Even Rebbi Elazar
ben Azaryah, who prohibits digging a water channel during Shevi'is, prohibits it only mid'Rabanan
because of the concern that it will be mistaken for an act of tilling the soil.) Since the act of digging
a water channel does not involve working the soil to produce fruit, any amount of exertion is
permitted. The Ritva prohibits an act of exertion on Shemitah only where the Rabanan were lenient
and permitted working the earth to produce fruit, such as in a situation of Davar ha'Aved.)

18
 OPINION OF REBBI ELIEZER BEN YAKOV: WATERING TREES ON
CHOL HA'MO'ED

Gemara attempts to identify the Tana of the Mishnah who permits Melachah on Chol ha'Mo'ed for
a Davar ha'Aved (in order to prevent a loss) but not for a Harvachah (in order to ensure a profit),
and who prohibits a Melachah, even for a Davar ha'Aved, when it involves excessive Tircha. Rav
Huna proposes that the Tana of the Mishnah is Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov. In the Mishnah later (6b),
Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov says that one is permitted to bring water from one tree to another on Chol
ha'Mo'ed, as long as he does not water the entire field (a Beis ha'Ba'al). The fact that Rebbi Eliezer
ben Yakov prohibits watering the entire field implies that he rules that a Melachah for the sake of
Harvachah is prohibited, as the Mishnah here says.

The Gemara asks that although Rebbi Eliezer agrees with one point of the Mishnah (that Melachah
is not permitted for the sake of Harvachah), there is no indication that he agrees with the second
point -- that Melachah which involves excessive Tircha is not permitted even for a Davar ha'Aved.
Perhaps Rebbi Eliezer argues with this point and maintains that even when there is excessive
Tircha, the Melachah is permitted for the sake of a Davar ha'Aved.
Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov's opinion is difficult to understand. If he agrees with the first point of the
Mishnah, that Melachah is not permitted for the sake of Harvachah, then why does he permit
watering the trees themselves? Watering the trees is also an act done to ensure that the trees grow
well and is not a Davar ha'Aved.

(a) TOSFOS (DH Moshchin) and RASHI (6b, DH Moshchin) explain that pouring water around
the trees is indeed necessary in order to prevent a loss. Just as one is permitted to water a Beis
ha'Shalchin because it is a Davar ha'Aved, one is permitted to water trees (even though the rest of
the field around these trees is a Beis ha'Ba'al).

(b) RASHI on the Rif (DH Mashkin Beis ha'Shalchin) writes the opposite: watering trees is not
something done to prevent a loss, since the trees will not suffer if they are not watered during Chol
ha'Mo'ed. They are not considered like a Beis ha'Shalchin and do not have the status of a Davar
ha'Aved. Only a field of Tevu'ah (grain and other vegetation) can have the status of a Beis
ha'Shalchin. Why, then, does Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov permit one to water trees on Chol ha'Mo'ed?
Rashi on the Rif (2a of the pages of the Rif, in his commentary to the Mishnah later) explains that
the reason why this Melachah is permitted is because it involves no Tircha whatsoever and is done
for Harvachah, to ensure a profit.

The RITVA explains that there is no Tircha because there are grooves, like small trenches, in the
field which lead from one tree to the next, and therefore bringing water from one tree to the other
involves no effort. According to Rashi's approach, Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov's wording is very
precise: he says "Moshchin (we may draw or let flow) water from one tree to the other" and he
does not use the typical word "Mashkin" (we may irrigate). The word "Moshchin" implies that one
is permitted only to draw water from one tree to another by letting the water flow from one tree to
another through the grooves in the ground, because no Tircha is involved in this act.

In summary, according to Rashi on the Rif there are three levels of Melachah on Chol ha'Mo'ed:

19
1. A Melachah which involves no Tircha. This form of Melachah is permitted even for Harvachah
(to ensure a profit) and not only for a Davar ha'Aved (to prevent a loss).

2. A Melachah which involves a slight Tircha. This form of Melachah is permitted only for a Davar
ha'Aved, but not for Harvachah.

3. A Melachah which involves excessive Tircha, which is prohibited even for a Davar ha'Aved.

"HA'MEKAYEM B'KIL'AYIM"

The Gemara quotes a Beraisa in which the Tana Kama and Rebbi Akiva argue with regard to one
who transgresses the prohibition of Kil'ayim. The Tana Kama maintains that one who weeds out
unwanted plants in order to help the forbidden plants of Kil'ayim grow, or one who covers the
seeds of Kil'ayim with dirt to help them grow, is punished with Malkus. Rebbi Akiva maintains
that even one who merely is "Mekayem" Kil'ayim is punished with Malkus.

To what act does Rebbi Akiva refer when he says "Mekayem b'Kil'ayim"?

(a) The ARUCH (cited by Tosfos to Avodah Zarah 64a, DH Rebbi Akiva) explains that when one
merely allows Kil'ayim to grow in his field, he is punished with Malkus even though he did not
plant the seeds. The Aruch explains that although there is a general principle that one does not
receive Malkus for a "Lav she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh" (a prohibition transgressed passively, without an
action), Rebbi Akiva does not agree with this principle and maintains that one does receive Malkus
for a passive transgression. This is also the explanation of the RIVAN (Makos 21b, DH Mi
Mishkachas).

(b) RASHI in Avodah Zarah (64a, DH Afilu) explains that "Mekayem" refers to one who builds
a fence of thorns around the Kil'ayim in order to protect them. This is also the view
of TOSFOS there (DH Rebbi Akiva). Tosfos points out that Rebbi Akiva agrees with the general
principle that one does not receive Malkus for a "Lav she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh." In the case of
"Mekayem," the person transgresses the prohibition actively (by building the fence). This is also
the opinion of the RITVA, TOSFOS HA'ROSH, and the ME'IRI.

(c) RASHI here (DH Af ha'Mekayem), however, writes that "Mekayem" refers to one who notices
Kil'ayim growing in his field and allows it to remain there (as the Aruch explains).

Why does Rashi here explain "Mekayem" differently from the way he explains it in Avodah
Zarah?

1. The BEIS HA'LEVI (1:35:2) answers that Rashi maintains that "Mekayem b'Kil'ayim" means
that one allows Kil'ayim to grow in his field, as the Aruch explains. However, one transgresses the
prohibition of letting Kil'ayim exist only when he is the owner of the field (as is the case here in
Moed Katan). The Gemara in Avodah Zarah, in contrast, refers to one who is "Mekayem" the
Kil'ayim of a Nochri. In that case, "Mekayem" cannot mean that one merely lets it exist, because
he has no obligation to destroy the Kil'ayim of a Nochri. Therefore, Rashi explains that "Mekayem"

20
in that case refers to doing an act (building a fence) which demonstrates that he wants the Kil'ayim
to exist.

2. The Beis ha'Levi suggests another answer. When a person performs an act which constitutes the
beginning of a transgression, he may be punished for subsequent transgressions (which result from
the initial act) even if he transgresses them passively. For example, one who wears a garment of
Kil'ayim (Sha'atnez) is punished with Malkus if he does not remove the prohibited garment after
he is warned, even though his failure to remove the garment is a passive transgression of the
prohibition. Since he initially performed an act (donning the garment) which led to the
transgression of the prohibition (of not removing the garment), he is considered to have
transgressed the present prohibition with an action.

Rashi here understands that when the Gemara discusses a person who is "Mekayem b'Kil'ayim,"
it refers to the same person who planted the seeds in the first place. Since he initially performed
an action when he planted the seeds, his present, passive transgression of allowing the Kil'ayim to
remain is considered an action.

In contrast, the Gemara in Avodah Zarah refers to a case in which the seeds of Kil'ayim were
planted by a Nochri. The Jew who subsequently allows those plants to remain did no action.
Therefore, Rashi there explains that the Jew receives Malkus only if he did an action of building a
fence to protect the Kil'ayim. This is also the explanation of the KORBAN ELITZUR (to Avodah
Zarah) and the MEGILAS SEFER (Lavin #279).

(d) TOSFOS in Bava Kama (81a, DH Ein) writes that when Rebbi Akiva says that one is punished
with Malkus for "Mekayem b'Kil'ayim," he does not mean that the perpetrator actually receives
Malkus. His transgression is a "Lav she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh" for which Malkus is not administered.
Rather, Rebbi Akiva means that his act is a Torah prohibition, an Isur d'Oraisa.

The RI KURKAS (Kil'ayim 1:3) and the KORBAN ELITZUR (to Avodah Zarah) explain that
Tosfos means that one receives Malkus d'Rabanan, according to Rebbi Akiva. (See YAD
DAVID to Makos 21b for an alternative explanation of the words of Tosfos.)

(e) The KESEF MISHNEH (Kil'ayim 1:3) gives another explanation. After the Gemara here
questions the Beraisa, it suggests that the Beraisa is expressing not two opinions, but only one
opinion -- that of Rebbi Akiva. The Beraisa means that one who weeds out unwanted plants in
order to help the forbidden plants of Kil'ayim grow, or one who covers the seeds of Kil'ayim with
dirt to help them grow, is punished with Malkus because he has transgressed the prohibition of
"Mekayem b'Kil'ayim" for which Rebbi Akiva maintains that one is liable. Rebbi Akiva is saying
that only when one performs an action with the seeds themselves does he transgress the prohibition
of "Mekayem b'Kil'ayim." In contrast, one who builds a fence around Kil'ayim is not punished
with Malkus because his act is not performed with the seeds themselves.

A similar explanation is proposed by RABEINU CHANANEL here who writes that "Mekayem"
refers to one who works the land and causes the plants of Kil'ayim to grow better. (Y.
MONTROSE)

21
 Introduction to the Tractate
Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:7

Tractate Moed Katan1 deals mainly with the halakhot pertaining to the intermediate days of the
Festival, which are often referred to as simply: The Festivals, in rabbinic literature. The discussion
of these halakhot leads to a comprehensive treatment of two other fundamental areas of halakha:
The halakhot of mourning and the halakhot of ostracism.

Combining the halakhot of days of rejoicing with the halakhot of days of sadness in one tractate
is seemingly contradictory, yet there exists a double connection between the two topics. First, there
is a practical halakhic connection between these areas of halakha, as the labors that are prohibited
on the intermediate days of the Festival are similar to the labors that are prohibited both during the
period of mourning and with regard to one who is ostracized, as he must act as if he is in mourning.
It is reasonable, then, to discuss these prohibitions in the same context. Second, there is an intrinsic
connection between the halakhot of the intermediate days of the Festival and the halakhot of
mourning in that they are derived in a parallel manner.

The essential elements of both the intermediate days of the Festival and the period of mourning
are mentioned in the Torah, and some of the broader details are alluded to as well. However, they
do not appear as explicit commandments or obligations, and consequently are treated in talmudic
literature as rabbinic commandments that are part of the oral tradition. This is the case despite the
fact that they are mentioned in the written Torah and were practiced in the time of Moses. Even
the Sages who maintain that these halakhot have a basis in Torah law agree that with regard to the
specific details, the Bible delegated them to the Sages. As a result, the halakhot discussed in this
tractate are not based on the objective categories that characterize Torah law, but like most rabbinic
commandments are dependent on circumstances and relative to the situation.

This means that there is a basic difference between the labor prohibitions on the intermediate days
of the Festival and those on Shabbat and the first or last days of the Festival. Additionally,
these halakhot of prohibited work are not absolute, as their main function is to preserve the unique
nature of the day in order to ensure that it is not treated like an ordinary weekday. They therefore
include certain leniencies. It is the Sages who determine the criteria of what is prohibited on these
days. As there are no comprehensive categories governing the prohibition of labor on these days,
the Sages were forced to establish many isolated halakhot that address specific situations.

Due to the fact that so many activities were permitted, the Sages wondered if it would not be better
to simply cancel the prohibition of work on the intermediate days of the Festival completely. As
these celebratory days did not have any specific ritual obligations, there was concern that they
would turn into sole days of idleness. In certain places the Sages in fact drastically limited the
scope of the prohibitions of the intermediate days of the Festival.

7
https://steinsaltz.org/daf/moed/

22
 1. In earlier generations, this tractate was referred to only as Moed, but it was changed to Moed Katan in order to
distinguish between the tractate and the order, Seder Moed. In many earlier sources, Moed Katan is referred to as
“Mashkin“, its opening word.

Watering on Hol HaMoed8

The intermediate days of Pesah and Sukkot – the days of Hol HaMoed – are difficult to define.
While not fully days of Yom Tov, neither are they regular days of the week. This necessitates
establishing halakhic boundaries that will guide us in our activities on those days. As we will learn
in this perek, the Sages work to find a system of laws that will clarify what types of activities are
forbidden and which are permissible so that the holiness and uniqueness of Hol HaMoed can be
kept. One of the ways of establishing these rules is by comparison to the halakhot that are found
in parallel settings, for example, agricultural work that is forbidden or permitted during the
Sabbatical year (shemitta).

The first Mishna in the massekhet discusses types of work that are not all that common in our day-
and-age but which were basic to the needs of the farmer. When can fields be watered on Hol
HaMoed or during the shemita year, times when agricultural work is generally forbidden, but
activities that are done to sustain the field and to keep the produce from getting ruined would be
permissible? The Mishna teaches that fields that cannot be sustained by rainfall and need to receive
water from some type of irrigation, can be watered, so long as the method of watering is a fairly
easy one. Thus, a plentiful water source like a well can be used, but rain water or mei kilon cannot.

Many explanations are offered for the term mei kilon that appears in the Mishna. The Aruk and the
Ran suggest that a kilon is a deep ditch from which water will have to be collected by bucket to
water the field. The Ri”f and the Ritva explain that the word kilon means a bucket, and is taken
from the Aramaic kulta. Another approach suggests that kilon is a Greek word, which describes a
method of raising water from a river or irrigation ditch by means of a long stick.

The Mishnah presents a complete set of actions which are permitted on Chol Hamoed in order to
prevent a loss9.

Arranging certain agricultural maneuvers to water an irrigated field, and fixing public works are
among the activities which are allowed, in the given circumstances. Tosafos notes that the final
halacha of the Mishnah— that the Beis din must send out messengers to uproot is a mitzvah
obligation. It is unlike the previous halachos listed in the Mishnah, as although they are all allowed,
they are not required. What can we learn from the connection between these topics?

8
https://steinsaltz.org/daf/moed2/
9
https://www.dafdigest.org/masechtos/MoedKatan%20002.pdf

23
In Gilyonei HaShas, R’ Yosef Engel cites a Tosefta in Kilayim, Chapter 2. “If a Jew sustains mixed
seeds in his field all kohanim must stay out of it. They should consider it as they do a cemetery,
from which they are prohibited to enter.” We see, explains R’ Yosef Engel, that there is a
comparison between mixed seeds and the impurity of the dead. In our Mishnah we also find that
the requirement to mark graves is listed adjacent to the mitzvah to uproot mixed seeds.

This revelation will help us to understand why shrouds for the dead are allowed to be made from
sha’atnez. Usually, we have a rule of ,which teaches that we are not allowed to mock and
taunt the dead, so to say, by performing mitzvos in their vicinity. For example, it is prohibited to
wears one’s tzitzis in a graveyard and to have the tzitzis strings drag along the graves. Doing so is
tantamount to teasing the dead, and showing that we fulfill this mitzvah, when they can no longer
do so. Similarly, we would expect that clothing the dead in sha’atnez should be prohibited, as this
too seems to be an expression of confronting the dead with the fact that they are no longer bound
by the mitzvos. Why, then, is this allowed?

As we have seen, the essence of sha’atnez and mixed seeds is one of ritual impurity. The dead
body is itself also a source of this impurity. Technically, if a live person could be a source of this
intense impurity, he would also be able to wear sha’atnez. However, as long as a person lives, this
degree of impurity does not exist. Once he dies, he does possess this level of impurity. When we
clothe him in sha’atnez raiments, we are not flaunting his inability to adhere to this mitzvah, but
merely acknowledging his status of being impure. This is not

The Mishnah rules that community needs may be met during Chol Hamoed. The reason for this
leniency is that community needs are not the responsibility of any particular individual, and they
are consequently often neglected. During Chol Hamoed people are idle from their regular
occupations and can thus work on community needs (1).

If these projects were not completed during Chol Hamoed they would likely not be completed
altogether, therefore they are considered akin to davar ha’aved (2) (lit. a matter that is lost. Davar
ha’aved is a leniency that permits melachah on Chol Hamoed to prevent a loss of principle.)

Obvious examples of community needs are fixing the roads, irrigation canals, community mikvaos
or marking graves. Rav Yitzchok bar Sheishes (3), the Rivash, extends the parameters of this
leniency. There was a custom that following a transfer of property, an announcement would be
made on Shabbos before Mussaf for four consecutive weeks. The purpose of the announcement
was to publicize the transfer of property so that anyone who may have a claim to land would be
aware of the transfer and could file his complaint in Beis Din.

There were a group of people who opposed the practice because, amongst other reasons, it involved
discussing business on Shabbos, which is prohibited. Rivash responded that although the practice

24
is strange, nonetheless, since it was put in place on the advice of Re’ah, it is worthwhile to justify
the practice.

The justification is that community needs, which may be discussed on Shabbos even if they are
business related (4), are not limited to community projects as assumed. Rather, any public need
that arises regularly, even if when it arises it addresses only the individual, is considered a public
need. For example, the Yerushalmi (5) includes convening a Beis Din to adjudicate a monetary
dispute as a public need. The reason is that the community requires a system of justice, and the
need arises regularly, even though each cases addresses only the individuals involved.
Nonetheless, it qualifies as a community need and may be addressed on Shabbos. Rav Yosef Karo
(6) cites this opinion in the halachos of Chol Hamoed to help define the category as it applies to
Chol Hamoed.

It was the tenth of Teves, 1844, the last night of the life of Rav Nosson of Breslov, zt”l. Although
he had already been very ill for a number of years with a chronic and worsening intestinal illness,
he still “strengthened himself like a lion” and arose at midnight to recite the chatzos service and
spend an hour in heartfelt prayer to Hashem.

Rav Nosson had adopted this practice in his youth, and never let go of it until the day he died.
After his prayers, he committed his final words to writing: “We find in the beginning of Moed
Katan that one may water crops on chol ha’moed if they would be otherwise ruined
and the owner will sustain a financial loss. This symbolizes how the true shepherds of the Jewish
people are always trying to draw those who are weak to be closer to Hashem. This is especially
true of those neshamos that are completely exhausted and cannot go on. This is one way to
understand the concept of ‫—דבר האבד‬it refers to those souls that seem on the verge of being
completely lost, God forbid. These neshamos require an injection of new vitality that will help
them blossom so that they can live the good life of emunah and closeness to Hashem.

25
 “This is why the Targum renders the word as a tired and thirsty
land. These are the souls who are tired and thirsting for closeness to Hashem.

“The first step in slaking that thirst is to convince the person that it is never too late to do teshuvah.
And this is true of even the biggest sinner who has done the worst things until it seems that he
could sink no lower. The truly righteous do not give up hope that even such a person will return.
And they try with all their might to encourage such people. We must never write a person off!”

Rachel Scheinerman writes:10

Today we begin the penultimate tractate of Seder Moed, the large collection of tractates that have
to do with festivals. We began this seder nearly two years ago, with Tractate Shabbat, and we will
finish it in about two months when we come to the end of Tractate Chagigah.

The word moed means festival. Today’s new tractate, Moed Katan, means “little festival,” and it
discusses the laws of intermediate festival days — the middle days of Passover and Sukkot —
during which the work prohibition is relaxed. Today, these days are more commonly called hol
hamoed, meaning the less sacred portion of the festival (hol literally means common or profane).
This tractate also covers the laws of mourning and excommunication, and it will all fly by in just
29 pages.

Why are festival laws different on the intermediate days? The most straightforward answer is that
the Torah tells us so. For instance, here is Leviticus on Sukkot:

Mark, on the 15th day of the seventh month, when you have gathered in the yield of your land,
you shall observe the festival of the Lord seven days: a complete rest on the first day, and a
complete rest on the eighth day. (Leviticus 23:39)

It’s clear that the first and last days of Sukkot are meant to be the high points of the festival, days
of complete rest. Likewise, here is what the Torah says about Passover:

You shall celebrate a sacred occasion on the first day, and a sacred occasion on the seventh
day; no work at all shall be done on them; only what every person is to eat, that alone may
be prepared for you.(Exodus 12:16)

Already in this verse from Exodus we see that there is a leniency on the work prohibition even for
the most important first and final days of the festival: Work may be done to prepare food for the
festive meal. This was the primary subject of Tractate Beitzah, which we explored just a few
months ago.

The work prohibition relaxes even more on the intermediate days of the festival. But just how
much? That’s what we will discuss in this tractate.

10
Myjewishlearning.com

26
The opening mishnah, which describes specific kinds of labor that may be performed on hol
hamoed, hints at larger principles and analogies that the rabbis use to determine the law. Here’s
how it begins:

One may irrigate a field that requires irrigation on the intermediate days of a festival as well as
during the sabbatical year, both from a newly emerged spring and from a spring that did not
just emerge. However, one may not irrigate a field with rainwater or with water drawn with
a shadoof.

This mishnah, which states that one may irrigate a field from a spring, but not from rainwater or
well water, suggests that the rabbis permit irrigation during hol hamoed only if it is not overly
onerous. Redirecting a spring and letting it do the work of watering your plants is one thing.
Schlepping bucket after bucket of water across a field is quite another.

As we saw with Tractate Beitzah, the rabbis are looking for a balance between keeping society up
and running, making sure that the festival does not place undue hardship on people, and preserving
the special joy of the festival week. The balance lies somewhere between doing no agricultural
labor at all, which in the case of a neglected field could precipitate financial ruin (no pun
intended!), and toiling to such an extent that the festival goes unnoticed.

Further down the page, the Gemara articulates another principle derived from the mishnah: Labor
should be performed on the intermediate days of a festival to prevent considerable loss, but not to
increase profits. The festival shouldn’t make us poor, but it is not the time to ignore the season of
our rejoicing to chase extra financial gain.

Intriguingly, the opening of this mishnah also suggests that there is a parallel between the
intermediate days of a festival and shmita, the sabbatical year. During shmita, observed for a full
year every seven years, land is not farmed and one is allowed to harvest only what grows
spontaneously. We let the land rest and celebrate. Just as we should for the full week on both
Passover and Sukkot — at least as much as possible.

Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:11

To be a ‘Shaliach’ is generally translated, at least in the purely halachic sense, as a ‘messenger’

whose task it is to deliver a particular item or message from one person to another. However, the
word ‘Shaliach’ in the broader aggadic sense - especially as reflected in the teachings and vision
of the Lubavitcher Rebbe - is to be an ‘emissary’ who has heard a call from within or beyond to
be a conduit that provides religious education, spiritual encouragement, and practical resources to
those in need.

Admittedly, the term ‘Shaliach’ is nowadays often purely associated with the Chabad movement
- whose tireless Shluchim can be found around the world. However, as someone deeply driven by

11
Wwww.rabbijohnnysolomon.com

27
a spiritual calling, I am of the opinion that this term applies to many different people including
those who do not consider themselves to be emissaries of the Rebbe, but who – upon hearing a call
from God to make a difference in the world - have responded with the word ‘Hinei’ (here I am).

With this in mind, I would like to turn to the opening words of Mishna Moed Katan which
describes an irrigated field as a ‫( בית השלחין‬Beit HaShlachin) which the Gemara (Moed Katan 2a)
subsequently explains, on the basis of the Targum on Devarim 25:18, to mean - ‘a field that is
thirsty for water’.

As should be clear, the word Shlachin and Shaliach are etymologically related, and this is because
what water irrigation does to a field – namely give it what it needs to grow, a Shaliach does to
those whom they guide – namely give them what they need to grow; and just as irrigation channels,
pipes and sprinklers are conduits delivering water to ‘thirsty fields’, shluchim are conduits
delivering Torah (which is often compared to water) as well as other necessary resources to those
who are spiritually thirsty.

Interestingly, just last week I had a spiritual coaching session with an individual with responsibility
for Jewish education programs in their community and who, during our conversation, told me how
they are spiritually drained and how, at the same time, they were currently working hard on
programming for Tu Bishvat in their community.

Upon hearing this, I explained that the reason why Tu Bishvat falls at this time of year is because
by this point of the year (in Israel), most of the rain has fallen (see Rosh Hashanah 14a) - which
means that by this point, the trees have much of the sustenance that they need to grow for a further
year. Having said this, I told them that in order for them to grow, and in order for them to be an
effective conduit to help their community grow, they too need to be spiritually nourished.

Undoubtedly, many of us are currently, as Devarim 25:18 describes about the Jewish people as
they left Egypt, ‫ – ָﬠֵיף ְוָיֵגַﬠ‬faint and exhausted, which the Targum translates as ‫– משלהי ולאי‬
‘exhausted and thirsty’, and which I would translate based on what I have said above as,
‘emotionally and spiritually drained and in desperate need of emotional and spiritual
encouragement’.

And this is why, as we approach Tu Bishvat this Sunday night, it is worthwhile remembering that
we all need to be the conduits that we can be to enrich and nourish others around us, while
similarly, we all need people who can provide us with what we need to grow.

28
 Watering Trees, Plants and Flowers on Shabbos

Rabbi Doniel Yehudah Neustad writes:12

Question: What are the Shabbos restrictions regarding watering trees, grass, or flowers?

Discussion: It is forbidden min ha-Torah to water trees, potted plants, grass, or flowers on
Shabbos since watering contributes to the plant’s growth and is included in the melachah of Zorea,
Planting. [According to some poskim,65 it is forbidden to pour water over the ground even in an
area that contains no trees, grass or flowers, since softening and loosening the earth is forbidden
because of Choresh, Plowing.66]

There is a fundamental difference, however, between watering grass and flowers and watering
trees: Grass and flowers only benefit if they are watered directly; they do not have the capacity to
nourish from water that has been poured near them, even in close proximity to them67. Trees,
however, have a far greater capacity of nourishment, and it is therefore forbidden to water the area
adjacent to the trees as well. Some poskim go as far as forbidding watering the ground if there are
trees within 30 [or even 50] feet away68.

Not only is it forbidden to pour pure water over vegetations on Shabbos, but included in this
prohibition are all other liquids which may contribute to the plant’s growth, such as beer, soda,

12
https://outorah.org/p/50824/

29
juice and most other water-based beverages.69 For this reason, Rama70 recommends that meals
that include drinking should not take place in one’s backyard or garden [or unfloored sukkah] on
Shabbos and Yom Tov, since it is extremely difficult to ascertain that liquids will not
unintentionally spill on the grass or flowers or near trees. [As a further advisory, one should avoid
eating fruits and vegetables outside after it has rained, since seeds that fall into the wet ground may
sprout or take root, possibly violating Zorea.71]

A common application of the halacha regarding watering on Shabbos concerns unrolling a sukkah
cover (shlack) after it has accumulated rainwater. When the cover is unrolled, the water will spill
directly on the ground near the sukkah, thereby watering the nearby trees or grass below. The
poskim offer several practical solutions to avoid this problem:
1. Ask a non-Jew to unroll the sukkah cover. This is permitted since it is permitted to ask
a non-Jew to do an unintentional act even if it will certainly cause a melachah to take
place (pesik reisha).72
2. Unroll the sukkah cover immediately after the rains have ceased, while the ground is
still saturated with rainwater. This is permitted because the additional water coming off
the sukkah cover will not be considered “watering” since the ground is already
completely “watered”.73
3. Situate the sukkah cover in an angle where the water will first land on a paved sidewalk
or patio. Even though the water will then continue to flow towards the grass or trees,
we are not concerned, as that will be considered an indirect action (koach sheini) which
is permitted in this case.74

On erev Shabbos, it is permitted to turn on a water sprinkling system and allow it to continue
watering the grass during Shabbos.75 It is also permitted to allow the automated sprinkling system,
which is preset in advance to turn on and off at a specific time every night, to continue operating
on Shabbos and Yom as well.76

65. Quoted by Mishnah Berurah 336: 26 and Sha’ar ha-Tziyun 18. See Chazon Ish, Shevi’is 18:2.
66. In addition, pouring water over earth could sometimes result in a violation of Lishah, Kneading; see Mishnah Berurah
321:57 and Shemiras Shabbos K’hilchasah 23, note 20.
67. Chasam Sofer (notes to Magen Avraham 252:20); Da’as Torah 336:3.
68. See Shemiras Shabbos K’hilchasah 26, note 15, quoting Rav S.Z. Auerbach.
69. Hard drinks such as whiskey or bourbon or very strong wine that contains no water do not aid in the growth of plants and are
exempt from this prohibition; Kaf ha-Chayim 336:32. Possibly, oil and honey are included in that category as well; Mor
u’Ketizah 336:3. [According to most poskim, it is also permitted to urinate over plants on Shabbos, as urine does not aid in their
growth. Spitting, however, should be avoided.]
70. O.C. 336:3. See Aruch ha-Shulchan 336:22 who praises those who are careful with this recommendation.
71. O.C. 336:4 and Tifferes Yisrael (Kalkeles Shabbos, Zorea 1).
72. Be’er Moshe 8:198; Rav S. Miller (Shoshanas Yisrael 10:45), based on Mishnah Berurah 253:99.
73. Har Tzvi, O.C. 135; Az Nidberu 10:3-2; Chut Shani 10:4. See also Kaf ha-Chayim 336:29.
74. Shemiras Shabbos K’hilchasah 12, note 53, quoting Rav A.Z. Auerbach; Shoshanas Yisrael 10:45. Alternatively, place a tarp
on the ground area where the water will initially land; Chashukei Chemed (Sukkah 28b).
75. O.C. 252:5.
76. Rav S.Z. Auerbach in Shulchan Shelomo 252:3, quoted in Shemiras Shabbos K’hilchasah 26, note 30, rules that using this
system, while halachically permitted, is not recommended since preset automated systems are not well known to the public, and
people might assume that the system was turned on Shabbos (mari’s ayin). This ruling was issued many decades ago when this
system was not widespread. Today, especially in the U.S., the usage of this system is commonplace, as almost all communities
irrigate their grass and flowers using a preset sprinkling system. Mari’s ayin is no longer an issue.

30
 Watering13
Watering plants and grass:[1]

One who waters seeds[2] in order so they grow is liable for the plowing and planting
prohibition.[3] Therefore it is forbidden to pour liquid over grass, plants, [trees[4]] and the like.

May one wash his hands over grass, plants, or weeds? It is forbidden to wash one’s hands over
plants, grass and the like even if one has no intent to water the grass by doing so.[5] This
prohibition applies by all plants, grass [and trees] whether owned by oneself, one’s friend or public
property.[6] [Regarding watering plain earth see Q&A!]

Eating outside on the lawn: For the above-mentioned reasons, when eating outside over a lawn
which contains grass, plants or trees one must beware not to spill or pour water over it. Hence it
is best not to eat at all over a lawn if one will be drinking or using water during the meal, as it is
very difficult to avoid any spillage.

Urinating over grass: It is permitted to urinate on grass[7], however it is proper to refrain from
doing so.[8]

13
https://shulchanaruchharav.com/halacha/watering/

31
Pouring juice over grass: It is permitted to pour wine and other juices over grass[9], however it is
proper to beware from doing so.

May one pour water over plain earth?[10]

There is no planting prohibition involved in pouring water over plain earth[11] unless one of the
following apply:

1. The earth is designated to be plowed or seeded, in which case it is forbidden to water it due
to the planting and plowing prohibition.[12]
2. There are trees within 15 Amos radius of the area in which case it is forbidden due to the
planting prohibition.[13]
3. The water will flow onto plants, or grass in which case it is forbidden due to the planting
prohibition.[14]
4. The earth is loose: It is forbidden to pour any liquid over loose earth due to the kneading
prohibition.

May one pour water over plain earth if it is near grass or plants?[15]

It is permitted to pour water on hard earth, which is near plants or grass, even if the water within
24 cm. of the plant. It is forbidden to pour it if it is within 15 Amos of a tree. In all cases it is
forbidden to pour water for plowing or planting purposes, or if the water will flow onto the plants
or grass.

[1] 336/9

[2] Lit. Zeraim. Rashi Moed Katan 2b interprets this to mean pouring water over the roots of the plant.

[3] As the water makes the soil soft for planting, as is done by plowing, as well as the water is placed so the seeds grow, which is
like planting. [ibid]

[4] Ketzos Hashulchan 142 footnote 18, Upashut.

[5] As nevertheless this matter is an inevitable occurrence. [ibid]

[6] However in such a case that it is not owned by oneself, being that one has no intent at all to cause the plants to grow, it is merely
a Rabbinical prohibition, as it is considered a Melacha Sheiyno Tzarich Legufa. [ibid]

Other Opinions: Many opinions rule as do Admur above that even on another’s garden spilling water is forbidden. However there
are opinions which are lenient to allow spilling water in a garden which is not one’s own and does not belong to a friend, and hence
one has no interest in the benefits gained by watering the garden. The basis behind this dispute is whether we say a Pesik Reishei
Delo Nicha Lei [which is not desired by the person] is even initially permitted or not. [M”B 336/27]

32
A Public garden: A public garden has the same status as personal property as all the garden visitors receive benefit from its growth.
Hence according to all it would be forbidden to spill water in such a garden. [Az Nidbaru 6/37]

[7] As urine does not cause further growth of a plant, on the contrary it damages it. [ibid] Nevertheless this is not forbidden due to
it being considered as if one is uprooting the plant as the plant has the ability to grow after the initial damage done by the urine.
[Ketzos Hashulchan 142 footnote 19]

[8] So learns Ketzos Hashulchan 142/14 in Admur that the warning to beware from even pouring other liquids on grass included
also urine.

[9] As only water has the ability to cause further growth of plants. However juice, not only does it not cause further growth of a
plant, on the contrary it damages it. [ibid]

[10] Ketzos Hashulchan 142/14

05. Using a Sink Whose Water Drains into the Yard14

If a sink’s drainpipe empties onto soil where plants grow, it may not be used on Shabbat by anyone
who has an interest in the plants being watered. It goes without saying that one may not use this
sink on Shabbat if it was intentionally set up to water the plants.

Nevertheless, many poskim maintain that one who does not care about watering the plants may use
such a sink on Shabbat – for example, if the plants do not belong to him and he has no interest in
their growth. In a time of need, one may rely on these poskim. To be sure, one who pours water
directly onto plants violates a prohibition, even if he does not intend to water them, because he is
helping them grow. In contrast, here the water is poured indirectly and is therefore a case

14
https://ph.yhb.org.il/en/01-19-05/

33
of grama and permitted (SSK 12:19). If the water from the sink reaches plants that have already
been adequately watered, whether through heavy rains or water that drained from the sink before
Shabbat, then even one who is interested in the plants growing may use the sink on Shabbat, since
he is not helping them at all.

Rain sometimes falls on Sukkot, and in order to prevent one’s sukka from getting wet one might
extend a sliding roof over it. When the rain stops, he will want to retract the roof, but he knows
that if he does so, water that accumulated on the rooftop will spill onto the nearby plants. May he
retract the roof anyway on Shabbat and Yom Tov? It depends: If the rain was hard enough and
long enough to saturate the ground, one may retract the roof, because the extra water serves no
purpose. However, if there was only a little rain, the roof may not be retracted, because this will
water the plants and violate Zore’a.[5]

Helping trees, seeds and flowers grow better.

34
Alan Goldman and Rabbi Shraga Simmons write:15

In our previous lesson, we learned about plowing (Choresh), the first of the labor categories
relevant to Shabbat. As we mentioned, Choresh is also the first labor category in the group of
melachot known as the 'Order of Bread'. This group includes, in logical order, each of the activities
in the agricultural process. So, in this lesson, we turn to planting (or sowing) seeds, which would
be the next thing to do once you've plowed a field.

Fundamentals of Zoreya

The classic case of the melacha of sowing (known in Hebrew as 'Zoreya'1) is planting a seed in a
place where it is able to grow. If you place the seed in an area where it is unlikely to grow, you
have not done this melacha. An example would be planting in sand or a desert area (or on some
other type of non-arable land).2 A less obvious example is planting in a place that has good soil
but is frequently used by people or animals. Even though the conditions would seem to be good
for growing, the constant traffic will prevent the seed from developing.

15
https://www.aish.com/authors/48865357.html

35
Zoreya goes beyond just planting, though. It includes anything that will enhance the growth of
plant life. This includes agricultural activities such as

• watering (e.g., a lawn)

• pruning a plant or tree
• grafting two plants3 together
• placing a covering over a tree to protect it from the cold

This appears to be pretty straightforward: if we leave our gardening work for days other than
Shabbat, we should be able to avoid this melacha. That's true to some extent. But there are also
other applications of Zoreya which we need to learn about.

Outdoor Issues

Many homes have outdoor areas that contain grass and other growing things. So, on Shabbat, we
need to be careful about depositing water (or other liquids) onto such areas. This is especially true
during the holiday of Sukkot, when our eating and other activities take place outside.

Let's return to our friend Joshua. In the course of his Shabbat meal in the backyard, he and his
guests will need to wash their hands (i.e., perform the ritual netilat yadayim) before eating bread.
Based on what we've learned, they should not wash their hands over the grass, nor pour any excess
water onto the grass or soil.4 This would be Zoreya, since it helps the grass grow better.

36
Somewhat less obviously, we will also tell Joshua and company to be careful when eating their
juicy watermelon for dessert. Those seeds are slippery and allowing them to fall into the ground
would be a rabbinic prohibition of Zoreya.5

If it rained on Friday night, Joshua might find that his lawn chairs have collected water. Before
using the chairs, he'll want to pour the water off. Pouring it onto the grass would clearly be Zoreya,
based on what we've learned.6

A similar issue comes up on the holiday of Sukkot. Some people keep their Sukkot dry by
spreading a tarpaulin over the top when the Sukkah is not in use. If it rains, the tarp will collect
water, and when you remove it, the water will obviously run off.

So, how do we act in these situations?

The halacha distinguishes between

A. a case where water will flow directly onto the grass; and
B. a case where water will first spill onto a solid surface (for example, a deck) and then flow
onto the grass.

In (A), you may not pour the water out, while in (B) you may. (The result is different because there
is a lesser degree of directness in case B).7

Also, you may pour the water out if the ground is completely saturated (which it would be
immediately after a rain). This is because any additional water won't help the grass grow – since
it's already soaked – and, as we said, Zoreya applies only when your action will enhance a plant's
growth.8

Indoor Issues

(i) Care of Indoor Plants

Everything we've discussed so far has been about plant forms that are rooted in the soil. But, maybe
surprisingly, Zoreya and the other melachot of Shabbat also apply to houseplants. (This is a
complex halachic issue; see the footnote for sources).9

Okay, then. We won't water our indoor plants on Shabbat.

Remember, though, that any enhancement to growth is considered Zoreya. So we also cannot
bring light into the room (by opening the shades, for example) for the sake of our
houseplants.10 After all, this would improve its growth. This does not mean (thankfully!) that we
have to sit in the dark on Shabbat. We can open the shades if we want light in the room, or fresh
air. We just can't do it for the purpose of having the light benefit the plants.11

37
But wait. If we open the shades to get light, and we have plants in the room, it is almost certain
that the plants will benefit from the light coming in. So how does the halacha allow us to bring in
the light at all?

Again, we go back to lesson #2 and the conditions we discussed there. On Shabbat, the purpose of
our actions makes all the difference (combined with the factor of the benefit being "indirect"). So
here, when we bring additional light into the room for our own purposes, we need not be concerned
that the light will also shine onto the plants.

(ii) Flowers

Often, people have cut flowers at home on Shabbat. Assuming that the flowers are already in
bloom, they are obviously not growing anymore, so most Zoreya questions don't apply to them. If
they aren't yet in bloom, then doing anything that will help them bloom would be Zoreya.12

An issue that comes up is whether we are allowed to place flowers in water on Shabbat or replace
them once they've been removed.

The halacha decided that putting flowers in water for the first time is considered a tircha – that is,
effort not in the spirit of Shabbat, and which should not be done on Shabbat. (Some also say that
it appears too much like actual Zoreya).13 In practice, then, we do not do this on Shabbat. And, for
the same reason, we do not refill the water in a vase containing flowers on Shabbat.

38
What about putting fully opened flowers that were already in water back in the water if they've
been removed? This is permitted in case of need, i.e. to save the flowers from withering. Here,
there is no tircha factor, and the flowers can't grow anymore, so there is no reason to prohibit this
action.14

(iii) Growing items in water (hydroponics)

Since the principle behind Zoreya is enhancing the growth of any plant life, it also applies to plants
that are not growing in soil. Thus, for example, taking an avocado pit and germinating it in water
is considered an act of Zoreya. The same goes for placing bean sprouts, lima beans, or similar
items in water or in moistened material. We do these activities to make the plants grow, and so
they are covered by this labor category.15

Summary and Review

We've learned that any action that is intended to enhance the growth of a plant (or the like) is
considered 'sowing a seed' (Zoreya) on Shabbat.

Zoreya is relevant to things growing outdoors or indoors.

Common Zoreya-related examples include

• watering a plant
• pouring water onto the grass
• dropping seeds on the ground
• opening curtains to let in sunlight for the benefit of a houseplant
• putting unopened flowers into water
• sprouting something in water (even without soil)

Finally, we should mention that moving any part of an attached plant is problematic on Shabbat,
due to the prohibition of 'uprooting' (Kotzer) and/or Muktzeh. These categories will be explained
in detail later in the course.

1. Pronounced zo-RAY-ah.
2. Recall a similar condition regarding the melacha of Choresh. See lesson #3.
3. When we use the term plants in this lesson, we mean any form of plant life. Sometimes, we will use the word ‘tree’
when it seems more appropriate; there, too, all forms of plant life are meant.
4. Orach Chaim 336:3, with Mishnah Berurah 26; Halachos of Shabbos, V:C.1 (p. 57).
5. Orach Chaim 336:4, with Mishnah Berurah 31-2.
6. Orach Chaim 357:1, with Mishnah Berurah 8; Shemirat Shabbat K’Hilchato 12:18 (51).
7. This is based on several of the conditions we discussed in lesson #2. See 39 Melochos, p. 270 and footnotes cited there.
8. Kaf HaChaim (Orach Chaim 336:3, 29).
9. Halachos of Shabbos V:F.1 (p. 62).
10. This reasoning would also apply to any changes in the room’s air or temperature for the benefit of the plants.
11. We would have a problem opening the shades if the houseplants are actually touching the curtains. This is because, in
this situation, the plants will get a direct hit from the sunlight. See 39 Melochos, p. 274.
12. Orach Chaim 336:11.
13. 39 Melochos, p. 276.
14. Shemirat Shabbat K’Hilchato 26:26 (91); 39 Melochos, p. 276.
15. Orach Chaim 336:11

39
 “TO WATER BY FOOT” – WHAT AGRICULTURAL
PRACTICES WOULD THE ISRAELITES KNOWN WHEN
THEY WERE IN EGYPT?

Maureen Kaplan writes:16

16
https://zeramim.org/past-issues/vol-v-issue-i-fall-winter-2020-5781/to-water-by-foot-what-agricultural-practices-would-the-
israelites-known-when-they-were-in-egypt/

40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Summary

1. David Frankel, The Good Land of Israel. ↑

2. Lundblom (op. cit.) mentions that parts of Deuteronomy 11:10-12 are contained in Qumran Scroll fragments
4QDeutc (fragments 12-15) and 4QDeutk1 (fragment 2). An examination of the material in Eugene Ulrich, ed.
The Biblical Qumran Scrolls (Vetus Testamentum, Supplements, volume 134, Leiden: Brill) Chapter on
Deuteronomy at 204-206 indicates a minor variation on the spelling of “by foot” with 4QDeutk1 having a hay
after chaf. Julie A. Duncan, “Excerpted Texts Of “Deuteronomy” At Qumran,” Revue de Qumrân, Vol. 18,
No. 1 (69) (Avril 1997) at 43-62 suggests that the excerpted texts were sometimes copied from memory, thus
leading to some of the variations. Hershel Shanks, The Dead Sea Scrolls—Discovery and Meaning (Biblical
Archaeology Society, 2007) points out that the Qumran scrolls predate a fixed canon of the Hebrew Bible and
texts had not yet been standardized. The variants seen in the Qumran texts of Deuteronomy 11:10 do not result
in differences material to this discussion. ↑
3. The Holy Scriptures (Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1985). This translation is
used in Jeffery H. Tigay, The JPS Torah Commentary Deuteronomy-The Traditional Hebrew Text with the
New JPS Translation (Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society, 1996) at 111-113 and The Rabbinical
Assembly, Etz Hayim. Torah and Commentary (New York, NY: The United Synagogue of Conservative
Judaism, 2001) at 1051-1052. ↑
4. Jeffrey H. Tigay, op cit. at 111-113. ↑
5. Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1-11: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Bible 5.
New York, NY: Doubleday Press, 1991) at 445-446. ↑
6. Jack R. Lundbom, Deuteronomy: A Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2013) at 402-403. ↑
7. Robert Alter, The Five Books of Moses (New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company Inc., 2004) at 936. ↑
8. A. Cohen, The Five Books of Moses, The Soncino Chumash (London: The Soncino Press, 1966) at 1047-1048
using the JPS 1917 translation). ↑
9. Everett Fox, The Five Books of Moses, The Shocken Bible (New York, NY: Shocken Books Inc., 1995), vol. I
at 936. ↑

53
10. William Willcocks and J. I. Craig, Egyptian Irrigation (Third Edition, London: E. F. & N. Spon, 1913) provide
a detailed recording of the volumes, flow rates, and chemical makeup of the Nile water, how it is channeled
into reservoirs for later irrigation, as well as the dates of sowing and harvesting various crops and how these
dates change as the flow works its way from south to north. See also Margaret R. Bunsen. Encyclopedia of
Ancient Egypt (New York, NY: Facts on File, Inc. 2002) Revised Edition at 277. ↑
11. William J. Murnane, The Penguin Guide to Ancient Egypt (New York, NY: Penguin Books, 1997) at 20. ↑
12. Karl W. Butzer, Early Hydraulic Civilization in Egypt: A Study in Cultural Ecology (Chicago, IL: University
of Chicago Press, 1976) at 85. Flax, used for linen, was also farmed in this manner. ↑
13. Murnane, op. cit. at 67-68. ↑
14. Jules Janick, “Origins of Agriculture in Egypt” In: Selin H. (eds.) Encyclopaedia of the History of Science,
Technology, and Medicine in Non-Western Cultures (Dordrecht: Springer, 2016). ↑
15. Christopher J. Eyre, “The Water Regime for Orchards and Plantations in Pharaonic Egypt” in The Journal of
Egyptian Archaeology (Volume 80, London: Sage Publications, Ltd., 1994) at 57-80. He notes that orchards
and gardens (termed “plantation agriculture”) entail a need for investment in land development and a perennial
water supply, and thus differ from the annual arable land farming. He posits that changes in terminology for
types of land in New Kingdom texts may relate to the development of large-scale plantation agriculture and
technological development. ↑
16. Sally L.D. Katary also examines ancient Egyptian and Greek sources for land tenure, described as the “regime
by means of which land is owned or possessed, whether by landholders, private owners, tenants, sub-lessees,
or squatters” with the mix of institutional and private ownership varying over time. See Sally L.D. Katary,
“Land Tenure (to the End of the Ptolemaic Period)” in Juan Carlos Moreno Garcia and Willke Wendrich
(eds.) UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology (Los Angeles March 2012), and Sally L.D. Katary, “Land-Tenure in
the New Kingdom: The Role of Women Smallholders and the Military,” Proceedings of the British Academy
96 1999 at 61-82 ↑
17. Jean-Christophe Antoine, “Modelling the Nile Agricultural Floodplain in Eleventh and Tenth Century B.C.
Middle Egypt. A Study of the P. Wilbour and Other Land Registers” In: Harco Willems and Jan-Michael
Dahms (eds.) The Nile: Natural and Cultural Landscape in Egypt (Mainz: Transcript Verlag, 2017) at 15-21
for a statistical analysis of land registers in ancient Egyptian papyri. He identifies two sets of ownership for
land. Plots associated with priests, overseers of cattle, and middlemen cultivators and administrators have a
certain set of soil categories or one of two categories for a fiscal category of land. Plots associated with small
landholders (usually having a professional link with the army) are characterized by landscape features such as
groves, mounds, high grounds, and lakes/ponds. The first set of plots is measured in land-cubits while the
second set is measured in aroura (about two-thirds of an acre). ↑
18. It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss the historicity, or not, of the Exodus. For a summary of different
viewpoints, see Biblical Archaeology Review, Ancient Israel in Egypt and the Exodus, 2012. ↑
19. The Sakkarah Expedition, The Mastaba of Mereruka. Part 1. (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago, Oriental
Institute Publications, 1938) Volume 31 at plates 21 and 30. ↑
20. Murnane, op.cit. at 28-29. ↑
21. Bunsen. op. cit. at 221-222. Also Murnane, op. cit. at 46, 53, and 61. The author uses the convention of “ma’at”
to discuss the concept and “Ma’at” when referring to the goddess. ↑
22. See Fitzwilliam Museum entry on Spells in the Book of the Dead. ↑
23. Foy Scalf (ed.) Book of the Dead: Becoming God in Ancient Egypt (Chicago, IL: The Oriental Institute of the
University of Chicago, 2017) Oriental Institute Museum Publications 39. Also E. A. Wallis Budge. The
Egyptian Book of the Dead (The Papyrus of Ani) (London: British Museum, 1985). ↑
24. University College London, Digital Egypt for Universities. Book of the Dead. Chapters by Number. Chapter
125A. From the papyrus of Nu. See also Allen, Thomas George. The Book of the Dead or Going Forth by Day.
Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization. No. 37. (Chicago, IL: The Oriental Institute of the University of
Chicago. 1974) at 97-99. ↑
25. Willcocks. op. cit. at 796. ↑
26. The goddess Ma’at was sometimes shown in duplicate, indicative of the dual nature of things. For example,
there cannot be a poor man if there is no rich man. ↑

54
Gideon Hadas writes:17

17
November 2012 Journal of Arid Environments 86

55
56
57
58
59
60
61
 Are Jews Meant To Be Farmers, Workers, or Thinkers?
So much of the Talmud is about working the land,

and the rules that govern labor, profit, and loss

Adam Kirsch writes:18

When you think of typical Jewish occupations, “farmer” comes pretty near the bottom of the list.
Jews, we usually imagine, are an urban people specializing in commercial and professional
pursuits, and there is a good deal of truth to the stereotype. In many periods and places, Jews were
forbidden to own land in Christian Europe; they clustered instead in occupations like finance and
trade, where they could benefit from their international contacts and high levels of literacy. By the
time Zionism arose in the late 19th century, the alienation of Jews from the land was a major theme
in the movement’s reform program. In the Land of Israel, Jews would “build the land and be built,”
re-acquiring the rugged rural character they had lost in exile.

18
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/belief/articles/daf-yomi-95

62
One of the things Jews were doing instead of cultivating the land was studying the Talmud.
Famously, in Pirkei Avot, Rabbi Yaakov says: “One who walks along a road and studies and
interrupts his studying to say, ‘How beautiful is this tree!’ ‘How beautiful is this ploughed field!’—
the Torah considers it as if he had forfeited his life.” The pious Jew should be thinking about the
Law, not the earth; about holiness, not nature. Yet the irony is that so much of the Talmud is about
nothing but the land and working the land. The rules about planting and harvesting in the land of
Israel are laid out in great detail. What effect did it have on generations of Jews, I often wonder,
to read about the farming practices of the rabbis, many of whom were landowners themselves?
Did a Jew studying in a yeshiva in Golden Age Spain, or in 19th-century Vilna, find his
imagination excited by these details, dreaming of a life on the land that would be possible once the
Messiah came? Or did it all seem abstract and a little tedious, like reading about the tax laws of a
country you’d never inhabit?

These questions came up once again in this week’s Daf Yomi reading, as we began a new tractate,
Moed Katan. The title of the tractate literally means “Little Festival,” and it refers to the
intermediate days of holidays like Passover, Shavuot, and Sukkot, which the Bible commands us
to celebrate for seven days. (In Diaspora, the rabbis established the practice of extending them to
eight days, as a way of insuring that the first day fell on the correct date.) The holiest and most
important days of these festivals are the first and the last, but a certain level of holiness also obtains
during the days in the middle. The rabbis set out in chapter 1 of Moed Katan to explain just what
kinds of work you are allowed to do on these days.

The first item in this discussion involves a long account of Talmudic-era irrigation practices.
Labor, for the rabbis, clearly means agricultural labor; this is the work that most Jews in their
world performed and had to know when not to perform. “One may irrigate a field that requires
irrigation on the intermediate days of a festival,” the first mishna begins, “both from a newly
emerged spring and from a spring that did not just emerge. However, one may not irrigate a field
with rainwater collected in a cistern … or with water drawn with a shadoof [lever].”

This seemingly straightforward ruling provokes an exceptionally dense discussion in the Gemara,
as the Amoraim try to figure out the exact justification for these distinctions. On the first and last
day of a festival, as on Shabbat, most kinds of work are prohibited; the exception, as we saw earlier
in Tractate Beitzah, is that on a festival you are allowed to prepare food. But here the rabbis show
that the rules for the intermediate days of the festival are more lenient. It is still forbidden to do
work that requires intense physical labor: That is why you can’t draw water with a lever, which
would require exerting a lot of force to raise the bucket from the well.

But why, the Gemara asks on Moed Katan 4a, is it forbidden to use rainwater from a cistern even
when it does not require a lever to scoop it up? “What excessive effort is involved in irrigating
with rainwater?” Rav Ashi explains that this is one of those cases where the rabbis made a fence
around the Torah by enacting a more stringent rule: “Rainwater itself will come to be water drawn
with a lever,” he explains. Once you start emptying a cistern, eventually its water level will fall to
the point where a lever will be needed. Better not to start using it at all and avoid the temptation.

Irrigation that doesn’t require pumping from a well, however, is permitted on intermediate festival
days. Irrigating a field from a spring still requires some work but not enough to make it a violation

63
of the holiday. Moreover, the rabbis are concerned, here as often, not to impose a ritual law that
would result in financial harm to Jews, knowing that such laws tend to be broken. If you could not
irrigate your field for five days in a row, the crops might shrivel up, resulting in a serious financial
loss.

The rabbis distinguish, however, between a field that requires irrigation and one that normally
makes do with rainfall. You can continue to irrigate the first kind of field on a festival, since this
is a matter of avoiding a loss; but you can’t irrigate the second kind, since this would be a matter
of going beyond the minimum labor to increase one’s own profit. The Gemara curtly states the
principle at issue as “loss yes, profit no”: On intermediate festival days, you can only do work
needed to avoid a loss, not work to gain a profit. By the same reasoning, the mishna instructs, you
cannot dig a new water channel on a festival day, but you can repair a damaged channel.

A second distinction involves work for private benefit versus work for the public good. It is
permitted to do work that helps the whole community, including repairing roads and ritual baths,
as well as marking graves. The mention of graves leads to another long discussion in the Gemara
about the reasons for this practice and how to do it. Coming into contact with a corpse, or any part
of a corpse larger than the bulk of an olive (a standard Talmudic measurement, though a rather
macabre one in this context), renders a Jew tamei, ritually impure; and a priest is absolutely
forbidden to contract this kind of tumah. You can also contract tumah simply from being under
the same roof as a corpse—and this extends, the Gemara says, to the “roof” formed by the canopy
of a tree, or a stone projecting from a wall. Clearly, it’s necessary to mark the location of graves
so that Jews will know where not to walk.

There is, naturally, a protocol to follow for marking graves. “They do not erect the marker directly
over the site of the ritual impurity,” we read in Moed Katan 5b, “so as not to cause a loss of ritually
pure food items.” That is, if you were walking in a field holding a bundle of dates in front of you,
you might accidentally get close enough to hold the dates above the location where the corpse is
buried, so that they would become tamei. On the other hand, “they do not distance the marker from
the site of ritual impurity, so as not to cause a loss of Eretz Yisrael.” If you fenced off more ground
than was necessary, you would effectively be diminishing the amount of land the Jewish people
could use for agriculture.

The Talmud doesn’t say exactly how to thread this needle—how to place the marker close to, but
not right on, the site of the buried corpse. But it does explain how marked stones were commonly
used to signal gravesites. “If one found a single marked stone”—the marks were made with lime—
then “the ground underneath it is ritually impure.” If there are two marked stones with a trail of
lime on the ground between them, this indicates that the whole area between the stones is ritually
impure. However, if there are two stones and no lime trail between them, then each stone is taken
to mark a separate burial site, and the ground in between is safe to use. It’s eerie to imagine walking
through a field at night and coming across the ghostly white of a lime trail, showing where the
dead are buried. Even the most technical parts of the Talmud are capable of inspiring visions.

64
 The Rabbis and Rain – The Religious and the Secular Approaches

Dr. Yair Paz writes:19

|
“The rains come due to the merit of one person, one blade of grass, one field” (Talmud Yerushalmi,
Tractate Ta’anit 66). The Bible links rain in its season to religious-moral behavior (Deut. 11:8-21;
Jeremiah 14; Joel 2; and elsewhere). Within the plethora of discussion in Rabbinic literature about
rain and the water supply, two main approaches are discernible: rain as a divine omen to be
understood in a spiritual sense, and as a vital resource to be managed using worldly tools. Did the
Rabbis sense a tension between these two?

The Theological Plane

Our Sages sought theological reasons for rainfall and its cessation, as exemplified by the following
quotes: “The merit of three things brings rain: the land, mercy and suffering” (Yerushalmi, Ta’anit
66c). “For four sins the rain ceases: worship of false gods, forbidden sexual relations, bloodshed
and those who preach charity but do not give it” (Midrash Bemidbar Rabba, Chapter 8). “The skies
are shut due to violation of gifts and tithes” (Tractate Shabbat 32b). “Only these cause the rain to
stop gossip and slander… haughtiness…absence of Torah study…stealing” (Tractate Ta’anit 7b).

19
https://schechter.edu/the-rabbis-and-rain-the-religious-and-the-secular-approaches/

65
It stands to reason that the prevalent weaknesses of the current generation were identified as the
causes of lack of rain, in an attempt to improve the people’s moral behavior.

Regarding the Land of Israel, the rabbis believed that since “God has His eye on the Land from
the start to the end of the year” (Deuteronomy 11:12), not only is rainfall controlled by God, but
He also determines the yearly rain quota at the start of the year. Is it possible nonetheless to
increase the amount of rain? Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai reveals some meteorological secrets of his
time: “If at Rosh Hashanah Israel was worthy, and much rain was decreed, and later they sinned,
the amount of rain could not be decreased, for it was already decreed. What does the Holy One
Blessed be He do? He spreads the rain overseas, deserts and rivers, so that the land does not benefit
from it. If at Rosh Hashanah Israel was unworthy, and little rain was decreed, and later they repent
– the amount of rain cannot be increased, for it was already decreed. What does the Holy One
Blessed be He do? He brings the rains down and sends wind so that the land may also benefit [drip
irrigation…]” (Yerushalmi, Tractate Rosh Hashanah 57b).

Thus there was established a religious protocol for increasing the rain, in regular or drought
conditions.

Standard Prayer

Each year there were prayers and religious ceremonies at the start of the rainy season (in which
numinous traces can be detected). From Shemini Atzeret to Passover we add the phrase “Who
causes the wind to blow and the rain to fall” to the second blessing in the Amidah prayer (Tractate
Berachot, Chapter 5, Mishna 2). Beginning on the 7th day in the month of Cheshvan, we ask in
the ninth blessing to “Grant dew and rain for a blessing on the face of the earth” (instead of “Grant
blessing”).

The tension that builds as winter approaches is manifest in the ceremonies of the High Holidays,
perceived as days of judgment. On Rosh Hashanah we are sentenced for life or death, and on Yom
Kippur the High priest prays: “May it be Your will….that this be a rainy year…” (Tractate Yoma
53b). On Sukkot we are handed the “decree of water” (Tractate Rosh Hashana, Chapter 5, Mishna
2). The science of meteorological forecasting tells us that the expected rainfall for the entire winter
is largely determined in the month of Tishrei, by the atmospheric altitude flows.

Most of the rain rituals were held in the Temple on Sukkot (“water libation,” Tractate Sukka,
Chapter 5). Their purpose was stated by Rabbi Akiva: “The Holy one Blessed be He said, Pour
before Me water on the festival so that you may be blessed with rain for the year” (Tractate Rosh
Hashana 16a). The Sadducees objected to the ritual performed by the Pharisees, and so the latter
added the celebration of ‘Simhat Beit Hashoeva’ (Rejoicing at the Place of the Water-Drawing).

After the destruction of the Temple, the Hoshana prayers, recited in the synagogue while circling
the bima with the four species in hand, served as a substitute for the Temple rituals, as a kind of
judgment day for the coming year’s rain. On Hoshana Raba there are seven circuits made, after
which we beat the willow branches as a symbol of our basic need for water.

66
Rain and Sexual Symbolism

The many symbols and the powerful tension in these rituals make them seem magical to the outside
observer. Rabbinic language also took on sexual nuances. Rain is referred to as ‘fertility,’
‘fertilizing the earth.’ The earth receives the rain ‘as the female opens towards the male’
(Yerushalmi Brachot 14a); dew is named ‘the husband of the earth’ (Ta’anit 6b). The Sages thus
indicated their preference for irrigation by direct rainfall from heaven, so that ‘the earth is
impregnated as a bride by her first husband’ rather than by canals, ‘as a widow impregnated
through harlotry (!)’ (Pirkei Rabbi Eliezer, Chapter 4).

Religious Ceremonies in Times of Drought

Much of Tractate Ta’anit is devoted to the struggle with drought. The length of the rituals is in
direct proportion to the severity of the drought: “If by the 17th of Cheshvan the rains have still not
come, individuals (‘special’ people) take upon themselves three fasts…if by Kislev, the court
decrees three fasts for the public…if the rain still does not come, the court decrees an additional
three fasts and prohibits work, washing, footwear, and marital relations… beyond this, the court
decrees another seven….over the first ones, accompanied by the blowing of the shofar and closing
businesses…beyond this, trade, building, planting, betrothal and marriage, and issues between man
and his fellow are all suspended, and individuals repeat their ordeal until the month of Nisan”
(Tractate Ta’anit, Chapter 1, Mishna 7). In these seven fasts: “They take the Ark [of the Torah
Scroll] out to the open space, and ashes are placed on the Ark and also upon the head of the Ab-
Beth-din, and everyone else puts ashes upon his own head, and the elder among them addresses
them with words of admonition” (Tosefta Ta’anit, Chapter 1). The ceremony induces a feeling of
Judgment Day (these fasts are now obsolete). When the month of Nisan ends, prayers for rain stop,
despite their importance for water reserves, for fear of damage to the first summer crops.

End of Drought

The agricultural definition of the drought’s end is dependent upon whether sufficient rain fell to
end the fasting, and several definitions are brought to denote the level of moisture of the earth:
“Rabbi Meir says, [Until the rain has penetrated] as far as the knee of the plough enters the soil;
The Sages, however, say: In the case of arid soil one handbreadth, in the case of moderately soft
soil two handbreadths, and in the case of cultivated soil three handbreadths” (Ta’anit 25b). Rabbi
Shimon ben Eliezer identified a phenomenon known today as ‘capillary action,’ in which water
rises: “Not a handbreadth of rain coming down from above but that the deep with two handbreadths
comes up from below to meet it.” The Rabbis also recognized that the force of rainfall can be either
beneficial or harmful (used by the Committee on Drought Damages in today’s Ministry of
Agriculture). The story of Honi Hameagel(Honi the Circle Drawer, Ta’anit 19a) defines three
levels of force: “dripping rain,” rain that “fills the cisterns, ditches and caves,” and “rain of
benevolence, blessing and bounty.” Today’s farmers know that the breadth and force of rain are
more important than its quantity. Thus the Rabbis taught: “And I will give you rains in their season.
[This means that the soil shall be] neither soaked nor parched, but moderately rained upon”
(Ta’anit 22b).

67
Bountiful rain created a dilemma; some prayed: “Master of the universe, Your people Israel can
tolerate neither good nor trouble in excess…May it be Your Will that the rains stop and the wind
blow;” and, on the other hand, there were those who opined, “In the case of any public distress,
may it never befall us, the shofar must be sounded – except in the case of too much rain.” (Tractate
Ta’anit, Chapter 3 Mishna 8).

Practical Water Management

At the same time, the Sages encouraged rational water management. A breita on the first and last
rains of the season explains: [‘Former rain is termed] ‘yoreh’, because it warns people to plaster
their roofs and to gather in their fruits [left to dry on the roof]” (Ta’anit 6:1).

The sages were also lenient in the matter of the seventh year and the holiness of chol hamoed
(intermediate days): they permitted fortification of terraces and other vital work during the shemita
year during the rainy season, and on chol hamoed it was permitted to “fix roads, open spaces and
water reservoirs” (Tractate Moed Katan, Chapter 1, Mishna2). Thus the festival became a season
of renovations, at the start of the winter on Sukkot and at its close on Passover. The importance of
these tasks was understood by the Rabbis, who therefore allowed them to be carried out during
chol hamoed.

The Tosefta describes the maintenance work performed on water apparatuses at the end of winter:
On the fifteenth of Adar messengers from the Bet Din (court) go out and dig holes and caves to
make water cisterns” (Tosefta Shekalim, Chapter 1). The Court was responsible for the
development of the water infrastructure, acting as a religious judicial body as well as a municipal
manager. Those who contributed towards the digging of pits for public use were praised for their
charitable act. “There was once a hasid who used to dig water holes for passersby” (Yerushalmi,
Tractate Demai 22a). The many stories of arguments over water holes have granted us much insight
into the types of public and private water systems used.

Whose responsibility?

There is tension revolving around the question of who is responsible for the water infrastructure
and its funding. A well-known discussion of the Rabbis about the Roman government relates:
“They [the Romans] have made streets, they have built bridges, they have erected baths” (Tractate
Shabbat 33b).

And “The Shiloah was gushing forth through a mouth of the size of an Issar [thin spray]; the king
commanded, and it was widened so that its waters be increased, but the waters diminished”
(Tractate Arachin 10b). Also, “it once happened that the people of Tiberias did thus: They
conducted a pipe of cold water through an arm of the hot springs” (Tractate Shabbat 38b). It seems
that the Roman customs took hold among the Jews, and there is archaeological evidence of
developed water systems (at Tzipori, Tiberias, Kazrin, Bet Shearim and other sites), indicating that
not all was left to Divine determination.

68
Funding

Yosef ben Matityahu (Josephus) writes of riots in Jerusalem that were sparked by use of Temple
funds by the Roman governor for building aqueducts for the city’s water supply (Antiquities of
the Jews 13:3b). This perhaps is the source of the halakha in the Talmud Yerushalmi: “The
aqueduct and the city’s wall, towers and all its needs are to come from the Temple” (Tractate Sota
17a). There are additional examples that indicate that water works were funded from the Temple
treasury.

Laws for Safeguarding Water Works

“A tree must be kept away from a pit [in a neighbor’s field] twenty-five cubits – a sycamore or a
carob fifty cubits; it makes no difference whether the tree is on higher or lower ground or on a
level with the pit” (Tractate Baba Bathra, Chapter 2, Mishna 11). A stone tablet from late in the
period gives archaeological evidence of the importance attached to this issue; found near the
conduit from Solomon’s Pools to Jerusalem, it threatens capital punishment to one who plants
within 15 feet of the water conduit.

Similarly, “One must erect a rail around a public well” (Tractate Eiruvin, Chapter 2, Mishnas 1-
4), to protect passersby or to define the well boundaries and facilitate supervision. Or “Prayer is
compared to a mikveh, because as the mikveh [reservoir] is opened twice and closed twice so are
the gates of prayer” (Yalkut Shimoni, Tehilim 789), indicating that the reservoir was locked from
time to time.

Priorities of Water Usage

Control of water sources allowed management, prioritization of its use and enforcement. The
Tamud Yerushalmi, Tractate Baba Bathra 13a, states that when rainwater accumulated in the
reservoir and people wanted to use it for laundering, a minority who objected could prevent it;
similarly, when people wanted to convert a laundry pool into clean water, the protests of the
launderers were not heeded. In sum, clean water always took priority. Moreover, Tractate Baba
Kama 81a states that the poor of the town have first priority for fresh spring water.

Summary

We see a dual approach towards water: 1) a belief that all is determined from above in response to
our moral behavior – this approach led to religious responses to routine and emergency water
situations; and 2) a rational, operational approach (encouraged by the religious leadership) to act
to prevent a water shortage, even entailing halakhic leniency when needed.

This perhaps resembles the manner in which the Rabbis dealt with illness – doctors were permitted
to heal (Tractate Berachot 60a) despite the belief that illness was a punishment. If drought was
also a punishment, why develop water purification systems? Perhaps water preservation was
perceived to be a natural human act not representing a struggle against the Divine decree.

69
Whatever the approach, it is clear that the joy over rain was absolute: “Rainfall is as wondrous as
the creation of heaven and earth” (Tractate Ta’anit 7b); Rainfall is greater than the giving of the
Torah, for the Torah is a joy unto Israel, and rain for all the nations and the entire world, human
and animal” (Midrash Psalms (Buber ed.) 117).

Welcome your extra soul, and irrigate the thirsty world

Our practice of Shabbat restores primordial wholeness to the cosmos. It has the capacity to
irrigate the thirsty world. Shabbat is a transformation inside of God in which we are actors.20

Our practice of Shabbat restores wholeness to the cosmos. That is one chutzpahdik assertion. That
there is brokenness in the world (in all of the worlds) is beyond doubt. But to suggest that we can
repair that brokenness through celebrating Shabbat? Holy wow. And yet this is what our mystics
teach: that when we enter into Shabbat wholly, we bring healing to God.

What does it mean to say that "Shabbat is a transformation inside of God in which we are actors"?
Perhaps this: God experiences brokenness and separation because we, God's creation, experience
brokenness and separation. But on Shabbat, we create wholeness in ourselves -- and in so doing,
we create wholeness inside God. Another way to frame it is through kabbalistic language: when
we observe Shabbat, we enable God's transcendence (distant, far-off, high-up, infinite,

20
So teaches Rabbi Marcia Prager, the dean of the ALEPH rabbinic ordination program.
https://velveteenrabbi.blogs.com/blog/2008/02/shabbat-gleanin.html

70
inconceivable) and God's immanence (embodied, here with us, as near as the beating of our own
hearts, relational, accessible) to unite.

And that is why when we experience Shabbat -- celebrate Shabbat, "make" Shabbat, enter into
Shabbat -- we open a spigot of blessing to irrigate the thirsty world. Every blessing has the capacity
to turn such a spigot, and Shabbat is the blessing of all blessings. Think of all of the sorrow, the
distance, the brokenness, the spiritual and emotional thirst in the world. And then recognize that
when we open ourselves to Shabbat, and allow Shabbat to work in and through us, we can become
channels for the irrigation which would soothe that thirst. It is the active participation of our hearts
and souls, experiencing the mitzvah of Shabbat, which unite God far above and God deep within.
When that happens, blessing flows.

Some of that blessing flows directly into us. On Shabbat, tradition tells us, each of us receives
a neshama yeteirah, an "extra soul." It stays with us until sundown on Saturday when it returns to
God. (This is one explanation for why we breathe fragrant spices during havdalah -- like smelling
salts, they're meant to revive us from that soul's departure.) That extra soul is part of who we are,
but during the week it's distant. We have two "levels" of soul (actually by some metrics we have
four or five, but for now, I'm just talking about two) -- a "lower" soul which enlivens the body,
and a "higher" soul which resides with the Mystery we call God. On Shabbat, those two unite. The
reality of who we are is joined with the potential of all that we might be.

The Talmud Yerushalmi teaches that Shabbat is equal to all of the other mitzvot put together, and
that if just once every Jew in the world truly observed Shabbat together, moshiach would promptly
arrive. The teaching raises some questions: what would it mean for all of us to observe Shabbat at
the same time? How do we define "us" in a modern, post-triumphalist paradigm? How do we
define "observed Shabbat"? For that matter, what would it mean for moshiach to come? But I

71
understand that piece of Talmudic wisdom in this way: if we truly experience the day of Shabbat,
we can experience a taste of the messianic era.

Of course, in order for that to happen, we have to make the time to enter into Shabbat. To stop
doing and simply be.

We have to be willing to let Shabbat change us.

We have to be paying attention.

Shabbat, and that extra soul, arrive whether or not we notice. But if we can be mindful tonight as
sundown falls -- how might the windows of our hearts be opened? With the eyes of that new soul,
what might we see?

72
 Watering Your Soul
Lisa Preuett writes:21
Hurrying out the door in a rush, I glanced over at my plants. A week ago the bright green leaves
flourished. But now those same leaves wilted away, some with a hint of brown.

I’ll water them when I get back home.

Several days later, I realized I’d forgotten yet again. Looking at what were once thriving plants, I
bent over to pick up a couple crisp brown leaves beside the plant on the floor. Oh no!
My plants were situated just right. They had a front row seat in front of the dining room windows,
allowing plenty of beaming sunshine.

Water wasn’t a problem either. My kitchen faucet was just a few yards away, always ready to
spout out enough water. An ample supply of water for thirsty plants!

So the problem wasn’t the placement or water supply. The problem was me.
I’m horrible when it comes to watering plants! Instead of disciplining myself to water them on a
regular basis, I’ll usually wait until they’re wilting before I give them attention.

What a powerful picture of how we sometimes approach our time with God.

I’m in a hurry now. I’ll read my Bible when I get home later. I’ll spend some uninterrupted time
in prayer when I’m not so rushed.

But then after a while, we notice how parched our soul is.

We feel empty inside.

Instead of thriving, we are barely in survival mode.

We might be alive, but we’re far from active.

I am so guilty of letting the fibers of my soul wilt away until I feel I’m dying inside. I desperately
crave refreshment. My entire being cries out for the living water of Jesus to fill my emptiness.

If I watered my plants on a regular basis, they would never wilt. If they soaked up life-giving water
consistently, then they would never turn brown. And I must humbly surrender myself in the same
way to Jesus.

21
https://reststopforthesoul.com/2016/04/26/watering-your-soul/

73
I need a dose of His living water each and every day. I will thrive so much more when I’m in His
word every day. My soul will feel satisfied when I run to Him moment by moment, and not just in
my melt-down-crisis-how-did-I-get-here moments!

Just as regular fresh water is essential to our plants, so is continuous communication with the
creator of our souls essential to our faith.

What about you? Are you in a season of wilting away? Are the edges of your heart drying up? In
survival mode? You are not alone, dear friend. I’ve been there. Sometimes I’ve lingered in this
place way too long.

Take time to rest in His presence. Take time to open His word. Take time to let His unlimited
source of living water fill you up to overflowing. His supply will never end. His love for you will
never dry up.

‫ ְוִהְשִׂבּיַﬠ‬,‫ ָתִּמיד‬,‫ ְיהָוה‬Š‫יא ְוָנֲח‬ 11 And the LORD will guide thee continually, and satisfy thy
;‫ ַיֲחִליץ‬Š‫ ְוַﬠְצֹמֶתי‬,Š‫ְבַּצְחָצחוֹת ַנְפֶשׁ‬ soul in drought, and make strong thy bones; and thou shalt be
‫ ֲאֶשׁר‬,‫ וְּכמוָֹצא ַמ ִים‬,‫ ְכַּגן ָרֶוה‬,‫ְוָה ִייָת‬ like a watered garden, and like a spring of water, whose
.‫ ְיַכְזּבוּ ֵמיָמיו‬-‫ל ֹא‬ waters fail not.
Isa 58:11

The LORD will guide you always; he will satisfy your needs in a sun-scorched land and will
strengthen your frame. You will be like a well-watered garden, like a spring whose waters never
fail.

74
 Rain and Dew in Our Spiritual Life
The physical world exists via two channels of relationship with the Creator of the Universe,
through rain and through dew, and it is possible to look at the spiritual existence of Israel
as existing on a kind of parallel with these two channels.

Rabbi Uzi Kalchaim zt"l writes:22

22
https://www.yeshiva.co/midrash/5304

75
Two Paths

Introduction

Just as the physical world exists via two channels of relationship with the Creator of the Universe,
through rain and through dew, so is it possible to represent spiritual existence, the workings of the
spiritual world and the manner of its influence upon the souls of Israel, as a kind of parallel to the
rain and the dew. Therefore, in the spring, when Israel begins to mention dew in the daily prayers,
we must arise and request a spiritual, lofty dew that will revive the dead and renew life in general.

One of the great early stages of Israel, Rabbi Hai Gaon, teaches us: "I have heard from the sages
that the resurrection of the dead will take place in Nisan . . . and therefore in Nisan we read the
'dry bones' Haftarah portion" (Tur, Orach Chaim, 490).

The "dry bones prophecy" (Ezekiel 37) is meant to awaken and prepare us for the resurrection
which will take place in the "month of spring" - Nisan. Let us consider these two elements, rain,
and dew, differentiate between them, and then move on to consider them from a spiritual point of
view.

Body and Soul, Dew and Rain

The blessing of rain is overt by nature. Man knows that after all his toil, preparing the soil,
fertilizing, sowing, he is ever dependent upon an open expression of divine compassion - the gift
of rain. He recognizes his dependence upon God's goodness in sustaining life on earth. He therefore
prays for rain in order to receive God's blessing through it.

This was Israel's intention in seeking God like rain - "Let us know, let us follow on to know the
Lord . . . and He shall come to us as the rain, as the latter rains that water the earth" (Hosea 6:3) -
like an element which is vital and necessary for worldly existence. The same is true regarding the
outward service of God, the fulfillment of Torah commandments. Man merits divine favor in
accordance with his toil and effort. This is our overt prayer.

God further teaches, "I will be like dew to Israel" (ibid. 14:6). Here is an additional bond, the
benefit of which is not so outwardly recognizable as rains. It seems to man that there is no reason
to even pray for it, for it is constant in nature, latent and ever at work. Even in times of drought the
dew does not abate. The same is true of "the incessant prayer of the soul, striving to reveal itself"
(Olat Raaya, Inyanei Tefila 1:1). This is what dew teaches us.

"God provides dew covertly, unbeknownst to man . . . indeed, in the hearts of Israel there is
incessant prayer. For dew also comes as a result of man's actions and his prayers. The difference
between them is that rain fall as a result of man's revealed outward service of God; dew, on the
other hand, results from the service of God which exists in the depths of the hearts of Israel. For

76
within their hearts they pray incessantly day and night, such that a person does not even feel it . . .
and this is called dew, and from dew all salvations come, for dew is a very small drop which God
gives to man, and therefore it has the power to enter even the lowliest and most inaccessible of
places, even the crevices of stones.

Because of its minuteness dew is able to enter even those hearts of Israel which are not so worthy"
(Sefer Hazmanim by R' Yaakov ben R' Mordecai Yosef from Isbitza, Passover Haggadah).

So, just as we have seen that there are two aspects of God's bounty which descend from heaven in
the form of rain and dew, as both revealed and concealed blessings, so have we found that in man's
inner world there are also both revealed and concealed manners of serving God. We shall now see
that the Torah and commandments influence man in the same two ways.

The Revealed Influence

In his song, Moses proclaims "My lesson shall drop like rain" (Deuteronomy 32:2). Rain's blessing,
the goodness of which is apparent, is similar to the words of the Torah which enter man's heart and
influence all aspects of his life. Through the words of the Torah a person is blessed in his study
and in the commandments he performs, he acquires desirable character traits and ascends
spiritually. Like rain which saturates the soil, causes it to sprout, and allows the hidden potential
of the seed to reach actual fulfillment, so does the Torah allow man's hidden spiritual potential to
reach actual perfection.

The Hidden Influence

But Moses also likens the Torah to do: "My saying shall flow down like the dew" (ibid.). Dew's
blessing is not openly felt and recognizable like the rain. Its benefit is hidden:

"Sometimes a person closes his heart in order to block out the words of the Torah. However, there
are words of Torah which are like dew, subtle and internal, capable of entering the heart even when
it is sealed tight and closed off. It may seem to a person that because of his low level the Torah
holds no sway over him . . . nevertheless, the minute, internal words of Torah in the depths of the
heart cannot be wiped out; without knowing it, a person possesses Torah hidden away in his heart,
and this is called dew" (Sefer Hazmanim ibid.). For the world cannot endure without Torah. God
influences the world covertly, without the knowledge of His creatures.

Two Paths

There is an ordinary path which leads man to the World to Come. Whoever engages in the light of

77
the Torah, in the laws of the Torah, will merit receiving life from the Torah. The performance of
commandments and the joy of commandments are conduits which bring us the dew of life from
the bounty of the heavenly treasure and allow us to enjoy the brilliance of eternal life.

And so, stage by stage, level upon level, ladders are erected between our physical world and the
spiritual world of resurrection and the World to Come. This sure and safe passage parallels the
actions of man when he plows and sows in order to merit God's blessing via rain and bring to
realization that which is hidden in the soil.

Yet there is something higher than this. It is hidden away in the soul, in the secret of the inner
uniqueness of Israel, beyond the thoughts and calculations of man. This is what the sages mean
when they say that in the future the Almighty will use dew, not rain, in order to resurrect the dead
(Shabbat 88b).

"Indeed, in the future, the Almighty will awaken His might, and he will say 'You do not understand
what I consider worship. I hereby testify that even in those places where you have completely
given up hope, Israel indeed clings to Me.' This comes from the power of the dew which falls
without man's noticing, and through this power will God one day resurrect the dead, as it is written,
'I will be as dew for Israel.' The Almighty will reveal the source of His people, Israel, how they
clang to him without even knowing it" (Sefer Hazmanim, ibid.).

78