Daf Ditty Moed Katan 3: Sh’mitta/Heter Mechira

1
2
§ The Gemara returns to the original topic of discussion: We learned in the mishna: One may
irrigate a field that requires irrigation on the intermediate days of a Festival as well as during
the Sabbatical Year

The Gemara asks: Granted, with regard to the intermediate days of a Festival, where the
prohibition against irrigation is due to the mandate to avoid excessive exertion on the festival, in
a case of considerable loss, the Sages permitted one to exert himself. However, during the
Sabbatical Year, both according to the one who said that one who waters is liable due to the
prohibition against sowing, and according to the one who said that one is liable due to the
prohibition against plowing, are sowing and plowing permitted during the Sabbatical Year?
How can these actions be permitted when the Torah explicitly renders prohibited working the land
during the Sabbatical Year?

Abaye said: The mishna is referring to the Sabbatical Year in the present time, when its
prohibitions are only by rabbinic decree, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda
HaNasi. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: When the verse states:

‫ַבַּﬠל‬-‫ָשׁמוֹט ָכּל‬--‫ ְדַּבר ַהְשִּׁמָטּה‬,‫ב ְוֶזה‬ 2 And this is the manner of the release: every creditor shall
‫ ִיֹגּשׂ‬-‫ ל ֹא‬:‫ ֲאֶשׁר ַיֶשּׁה ְבֵּרֵﬠהוּ‬,‫ַמֵשּׁה ָידוֹ‬ release that which he hath lent unto his neighbour; he shall
‫ָקָרא ְשִׁמָטּה‬-‫ ִכּי‬,‫ָאִחיו‬-‫ֵרֵﬠהוּ ְוֶאת‬-‫ֶאת‬ not exact it of his neighbour and his brother; because the
.‫ַליהָוה‬ LORD'S release hath been proclaimed.
Deut 15:2

“And this is the manner of the release, every creditor will release that which he has lent to his
neighbor” the verse speaks of two releases: One is the release of land, that one must refrain
from working the land, and the other is the release of money, that one must refrain from
collecting debts.

3
This verse equates these two releases, indicating that when you are mandated by Torah law to
release land, you must release money, and when you are not mandated to release land, you
need not release money. This indicates that according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, at the present
time, the release of land is not mandated by Torah law. Therefore, observance of the Sabbatical
Year is mandated only by rabbinic law, and the Sages were lenient in a case of significant loss.

Rava said: Even if you say that the mishna was taught in accordance with the opinion of the
Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and maintain that the observance of the
Sabbatical Year, even at the present time, is mandated by Torah law, one can understand the
leniency in the mishna. The reason for the leniency with regard to irrigation is because only
primary categories of labor were prohibited by the Merciful One, i.e., by Torah law,

whereas the subcategories of labor that are derived from them, e.g., watering, were not
prohibited by the Merciful One, i.e., by Torah law, but only by rabbinic law; and in a case of
loss the Sages were lenient. The source for this distinction is as it is written:

‫שַׁבּת ַשָׁבּתוֹן‬ ַ ,‫ד וַּבָשָּׁנה ַהְשִּׁביִﬠת‬ 4 But in the seventh year shall be a sabbath of solemn rest
‫ ל ֹא‬f‫ ָשְׂד‬:‫ ַליהָוה‬,‫ַשָׁבּת‬--‫ִיְהֶיה ָלָא ֶרץ‬ for the land, a sabbath unto the LORD; thou shalt
.‫ ל ֹא ִתְזֹמר‬f‫ ְוַכ ְרְמ‬,‫ִתְז ָרע‬ neither sow thy field, nor prune thy vineyard.

-‫ ְוֶאת‬,‫ ל ֹא ִתְקצוֹר‬f‫ה ֵאת ְסִפיַח ְקִצי ְר‬ 5 That which groweth of itself of thy harvest thou shalt
,‫שָׁבּתוֹן‬ ַ ‫ ְשַׁנת‬:‫ ל ֹא ִתְבֹצר‬f‫ִﬠ ְנֵּבי ְנִזי ֶר‬ not reap, and the grapes of thy undressed vine thou shalt
.‫ִיְהֶיה ָלָא ֶרץ‬ not gather; it shall be a year of solemn rest for the land.
Lev 25:4-5

“But in the seventh year shall be a sabbath of solemn rest for the land, a sabbath for the Lord:
Your field you shall not sow, and your vineyard you shall not prune. That which grows of its own
accord of your harvest you shall not reap, nor gather the grapes of your undressed vines”

4
Since pruning is included in the principal category of sowing, as its objective is to encourage the
plant’s growth, and picking grapes is included in the principal category of reaping grain, as both
involve removal of produce from a plant, for the purpose of teaching what halakha did the
Merciful One write them? Why did the Torah explicitly prohibit pruning and picking grapes,
rather than sufficing with the general prohibitions against sowing and reaping?

The Gemara answers that these were individually enumerated to say that only for these
subcategories of labor is one liable to be flogged, while for other subcategories of labor, i.e.,
watering a field, one is not liable. Consequently, there are only four types of labor that are
prohibited by Torah law during the Sabbatical Year: Sowing and its subcategory of pruning, as
well as reaping and its subcategory of grape picking. All other subcategories of labor are prohibited
only by rabbinic decree.

Summary

Sabbatical Year Preparation: The Ten Saplings

During the Sabbatical year, there are four categories of labour that are punishable by
flogging. These are sowing (and pruning, a subcategory), reaping (and gathering, including grape-
picking, a subcategory). Torah law dictates these restrictions and this punishment. The rabbis
discuss Torah law that is handed down from Moses on Mount Sinai and Torah law that is
written. They wonder whether there might be exceptions to this halacha of flogging.

To avoid punishment at all, it is necessary for the rabbis to create clear guidelines around these
practices. Exactly when must one end their sowing in advance of a Sabbatical year? What about
other related practices, including watering, fumigation, mending? Beit Hillel tell us to use Shavuot
as a marker, while Beit Shammai tell us to wait until we notice seasonal signals.

It is clear that the rabbis want us to benefit from fresh produce for as long as possible. They clearly

5
wish to minimize the inconvenience and suffering of their communities. They also want to get it
'right'. The rabbis want to be careful to set their fences very carefully - finding that sweet spot
between stringency and leniency.

We learn today about the law of the ten saplings. If ten saplings are planted in a field at a particular
time before the Sabbatical year, the field may be tended for longer. Fewer than ten saplings would
mean that only the ground just beneath the trees could be tended. More than ten saplings would
constitute an orchard, and the trees might survive without our intervention.

These agriculturally based laws recognize that the long-term health of our produce is key to our
survival. Care for the land and the land will take care of us. Somewhere along the line we have
forgotten the importance of that consideration.

Rav Avrohom Adler writes:1

The Gemora provides a Scriptural source indicating that toldos (secondary labors) except for
pruning and picking grapes are not Biblically prohibited during Shemittah. The Gemora asks: Isn’t
there a braisa that explicitly prohibits the performance of other toldos during Shemittah?

The braisa derives from a Scriptural verse that weeding (with the roots), digging under the vines,
weeding (leaving the roots), pruning trees, sawing (off branches, when they are too numerous),
supporting (trees by propping them up), fertilizing, removing stones from the roots, covering the
roots with earth, and smoking (for the purpose of killing the insects on the tree) are not permitted
to be done during the Shemittah. All of the above are toldos and nonetheless forbidden to perform
during Shemittah. The Gemora answers: The prohibition is only Rabbinic, and the Scriptural
verses merely add support to the injunction.

The Gemora states that it is permitted to hoe around the tree during Shemittah to ensure that the
tree will not die or dry out. One is forbidden, however, to hoe around the tree by softening and
loosening the earth, as this would actually cause an improvement in the tree.

The Gemora presents a dispute between Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Elozar whether one would
incur the thirty-nine lashes if he would plow during Shemittah. [Rashi (2b) states that there is a
positive commandment which forbids plowing on Shemittah. It is written [Shmos 34:21]: From
plowing and harvesting you shall desist. The point of contention between the two Amoraim is if
there is a negative commandment as well.]

The Gemora suggests that their dispute depends on the principle of Rabbi Avin, who says in the
name of Rabbi Ilai that when the verse presents a general positive command, followed by a specific
prohibition, the prohibition does not limit the positive command. The one who says that he incurs

1
http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Moed_Katan_3.pdf

6
lashes does not hold like Rabbi Avin in the name of Rabbi Ilai, and the one who maintains that he
does not incur lashes holds like Rabbi Avin.

The Gemora rejects this reasoning, for perhaps everyone disagrees with Rabbi Avin in the name
of Rabbi Ilai, and the one who maintains that he incurs lashes is understandable. The one who says
that he does not incur lashes would say as follows: Let us see; pruning comes within the general
process of planting and picking grapes within the general process of harvesting, what rule did the
Merciful One intend to inculcate by inserting these (pruning and picking grapes) into the verse? It
is to indicate that only for these secondary processes (specified in the verse) will one be liable, but
for any other secondary process, he will not be liable.

The Gemora asks: But is he not? Surely it was taught in a braisa: You shall neither plant your field
nor prune your vineyard; this only forbids one from planting or pruning; from where do we know
that one is forbidden from hoeing, hoeing (under olive trees), or the trimming of wilted parts? It is
from the instructive form of the verse: Your field you shall not . . . your vineyard you shall not . .
. which indicates that no manner of work in your field (should be done); no manner of work in
your vineyard. And from where do we know that one is forbidden, by a tree, from trimming its dry
branches, nor cutting back its shoots, nor supporting it? It is from the instructive form of the verse:
Your field you shall not . . . your vineyard you shall not . . . which indicates that no manner of
work in your field (should be done); no manner of work in your vineyard. And from where do we
know that one is forbidden, by a tree, from fertilizing its roots, nor removing stones from it, nor
fumigate it? It is from the instructive form of the verse: Your field you shall not . . . your vineyard
you shall not . . . which indicates that no manner of work in your field (should be done); no manner
of work in your vineyard. Am I might have thought that one may not hoe under the olive trees, nor
hoe under the grapevines, nor fill the open gaps (under the trees) with water, nor make ditches for
the vines?

There is the instructive wording of the text: Your field you shall not plant. Now, planting was
already included in the general terms of the ordinance (against working the field during
Shemittah); why then was it singled out? It is for the purpose of providing a comparison, that just
as planting has the special quality of being a work common to field and vineyard, so is any other
work that is common to field and vineyard forbidden. [Evidently, there are many other tolados that
are forbidden!?] The Gemora answers: The prohibition is only Rabbinic, and the Scriptural verses
merely add support to the injunction.

Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisroel to Bavel, and he stated: I heard the following braisa in Eretz
Yisroel and I do not understand its meaning. It was taught in a braisa: You might think that one
will incur lashes for transgressing the extension; there was a teaching that he does not. Rav Dimi
said: I do not know what the teaching was or what ‘extension’ the braisa was referring to. Rabbi
Elozar explained: When the braisa said ‘extension,’ it was referring to the transgression of plowing
during Shemittah and that one should incur lashes if he transgresses this prohibition; there is a
teaching that exempts one from receiving lashes for plowing based on the fact that the Torah lists
specific labors that are subject to lashes, and it does not include plowing. Rabbi Yochanan said:
When the braisa said ‘extension,’ it was referring to the days which the Rabbis added to Shemittah
before Rosh Hashanah and the braisa teaches us that one who transgresses this injunction will not
incur lashes.

7
The Gemora elaborates on the number of days that are included in the Rabbis addition to the
Shemittah year. The Gemora cites a Mishna: Up to what date may plowing be done in a tree field
in the pre-Shemittah year? Beis Shammai says: As long as it is for the benefit of the fruit; Beis
Hillel say: until Shavuos.

The Mishna notes: and the practical effect of one ruling is much the same as that of the other. And
up to what date may they plow a grain field in the pre-Shemittah year? Up to when the moisture
ceases and as long as people plow for planting their squash and gourd beds. Rabbi Shimon said: If
that is so, you have handed over the Torah for every individual to determine for himself the right
time! Rather, a grain field, they may plow up to Pesach, and a tree field up to Shavuos.

Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who said in the name of
Bar Kappara: Rabban Gamliel and his Beis Din took a vote and nullified the previous decree, thus
enabling the fields to be plowed until Rosh Hashanah of the Shemittah year. Rabbi Zeira asked
Rav Avahu or according to others, Rish Lakish asked Rabbi Yochanan: How could Rabban
Gamliel annul a decree of Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel? Have we not learned in a Mishna (Eduyos
1:5) that a Beis Din is not able to abolish the ordinances of its colleagues unless they are greater
than the first Beis Din in wisdom and in numbers?

He was bewildered for a moment and then answered: Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel stipulated that
whoever wants to nullify this decree in the future may do so. The Gemora asks: Were Beis
Shammai and Beis Hillel the ones who issued the decree regarding the days before the Shemittah
year; is it not true that this was actually a halachah transmitted to Moshe at Sinai? For Rabbi Assi
said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan citing Rabbi Nechunia from the valley of Bais Choron that
the permission to plow a field with ten saplings until Shemittah, the use of aravah on Sukkos in
the Bais Hamikdash, and water libations are all halachos transmitted orally to Moshe at Mt. Sinai.

Rabbi Yitzchak answers: The law regarding thirty days before Rosh Hashanah was transmitted to
Moshe at Sinai and Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel came and established that the prohibition begins
from Pesach or Shavuos, and they stipulated that whoever wants to nullify this decree in the future
may do so. The Gemora asks: Is it true that the halachah extending the Shemittah year thirty days
before Rosh Hashanah is a halachah transmitted to Moshe at Sinai; Rabbi Akiva is quoted in a
braisa teaching us that this is a halachah derived from Scripture. Rabbi Akiva cites a verse in the
Torah and expounds from it: “Six days a week you shall work and on the seventh day you shall
rest; at the plowing and the reaping you shall rest.” Rabbi Akiva learns that the second part of the
possuk is teaching a halachah regarding Shemittah. One must abstain from plowing prior to the
seventh year if it will benefit the seventh year and one must accord Shemittah sanctity for the
harvesting of the seventh year from produce that is still growing in the eighth year.

WOMEN PLOWING DURING SHEMITTAH

The Gemora presents a dispute between Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Elozar whether one would
incur the thirty-nine lashes if he would plow during Shemittah. Rashi (2b) states that there is a
positive commandment which forbids plowing on Shemittah. It is written [Shmos 34:21]: From
plowing and harvesting you shall desist. The point of contention between the two Amoraim is if

8
there is a negative commandment as well. The Rambam in Hilchos Shemittah rules that one who
plows during Shemittah does not incur the thirty-nine lashes. Kesef Mishna explains: Since in our
Gemora, it was left ambiguously regarding which Amora held what, we cannot administer the
lashes when there is uncertainty. Sha’ar Hamelech in the beginning of Hilchos Shemittah writes
that the Yerushalmi in Shabbos (7:2) states that Rabbi Yochanan is the one who maintains that he
does not receive the lashes and the rule is that when Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Elozar argue, the
halachah is in accordance with Rabbi Yochanan.

Minchas Chinuch (112) comments that women are obligated in this mitzvah even though it is a
positive commandment that has a time element to it and the principle is that women are exempt
from any positive mitzvah which is governed by time. He explains that this is applicable only
regarding a positive mitzvah that is incumbent on the body of the person and not a mitzvah like
Shemittah, which is a mitzvah that is dependent on the land (mitzvos hateluyos ba’aretz). Proof to
this is cited from the Ritva in Kiddushin (29a).

The Gemora rules based on a Scriptural verse that women are not obligated to perform a
circumcision on their sons. Tosfos asks: Why is a possuk necessary; circumcision is a positive
mitzvah who is governed by time since the mitzvah can only be performed by day, and women are
exempt? The Ritva answers: Any mitzvah who is not related to the person themselves; this
principle does not apply. The mitzvah of milah is to perform the circumcision on the son and
therefore women would be obligated if not for the special verse teaching us otherwise.

Shemittah – Two Aspects

The mitzvah of Shemittah is introduced to us in Parshas Behar with the phrase, "veshavsa haaretz
Shabbos laHashem." The land rests for Hashem. Clearly this is the aspect of Shemittah which is
bein adam lamakom.

Yet, shemittah is presented also as a mitzvah bein adam lachaveiro. All produce is ownerless
during Shemittah. The poor and rich eat together. The differences between the classes in society
disappear as all enjoy the fruit of the land equally. This dual aspect of Shemittah being both a
Shabbos Lashem as well as a way of bringing people together conjures up the same image as does
the weekly Shabbos. It is a day of zecher lemaaseh breishis as well as "vayinafesh ben amascha
vehager" - a time when all members of society rest together.

THE MELACHAH OF "CHORESH" DURING SHEMITAH -- AN

AV OR A TOLDAH

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:2

2
https://www.dafyomi.co.il/mkatan/insites/mo-dt-003.htm

9
The Gemara teaches that most Toldos of the Av Melachos of Shevi'is -- Zore'a (sowing), Choresh
(plowing), and Kotzer (harvesting) -- are permitted during Shevi'is. This is derived from the fact
that the Torah specifies certain Toldos as prohibited during Shevi'is (the Melachos of Zemirah and
Betzirah, which are Toldos of Ketzirah), which implies that all other Toldos during Shevi'is are
permitted. The Gemara uses this Derashah to explain why Charishah (plowing) during Shevi'is is
not punishable with Malkus according to one opinion. The Gemara says, "[Only] for these Toldos
is one Chayav; for any other Toldah, one is not Chayav."

How does the Gemara derive from this Derashah that one is not liable for Charishah during
Shevi'is? The Derashah says that one is liable only for the Toldos specified in the Torah, but not
for any other Toldos. Charishah, however, is an Av Melachah and not a Toldah, as the Mishnah in
Shabbos (73a) clearly states! (MAHARSHA)

The MAHARSHA answers that when the Gemara uses the word "Toldos" here it refers
specifically to Toldos of the Melachos of Shemitah and not of the Melachos of Shabbos. The verses
from which the prohibitions of Shemitah are derived make no mention of the Melachah of
Charishah. (Although the verse in Shemos 34:21 mentions it, the Gemara here follows the opinion
of Rebbi Yishmael (4a) who understands this verse as a reference to the laws of Shabbos and not
to Shemitah. Alternatively, the Gemara maintains that if the Melachah is not written in the form
of a Lo Ta'aseh, a prohibition, but only as a Mitzvas Aseh (as in this verse), it is not counted as an
Av Melachah.)

The RITVA (end of 2b) writes that Rashi's edition of the Gemara had a different Girsa. His text
did not read, "For these Toldos is one Chayav; for any other Toldah, one is not Chayav" ("d'a'Hani
Toldos Hu d'Mechayev, a'Toldah Acharina Lo Mechayev)," but rather, "For these one is Chayav;
for any other, one is not Chayav," without the words "Toldos" and "Toldah." (The DIKDUKEI
SOFRIM omits the second word "Toldah," which indeed is the way the phrase appears even in
our edition at the top of the page, line 5. This Girsa results in the same implication as Rashi's
Girsa.)

According to this Girsa, the Derashah teaches that one is liable only for the Melachos mentioned
in the Torah, while for any other Melachah -- Toldah or Av -- one is not liable.

This is also the Girsa of RASHI KESAV YAD (Kupfer), and it is the way
the RAMBAM (Hilchos Shemitah v'Yovel 1:3) explains the Gemara. (Similarly, the words of
Rashi in our edition (end of the page, DH Acharina Lo) imply that he did not have the word
"Toldah" in his text.)

10
 More on the Sabbatical Year

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:3

Just like the laws of Shabbat have Avot (primary activities that are forbidden)
and Toladot (secondary activities – see Massekhet Shabbat), similarly the laws of shemitta have
both Avot and Toladot. The Avot are the agricultural activities that are specifically listed in the
Torah (see Vayikra 25:4-5) as being forbidden during the Sabbatical year, primarily activities of
planting, pruning and harvesting.

The baraita that is quoted by our Gemara lists various activities that are considered Toladot, but
the conclusion is that these Toladot are only Rabbinic in nature, and are, therefore, not punishable.
What is included in the Toladot? Among them we find –

Mekarsemin

The accepted definition of kirsum is the removal of dry branches, which Rashi points out is
identical to zemira (pruning), although zemira is specific to grape vines. Another suggestion is that
it refers to the removal of excess branches by methods other than pruning.

Mezardin

Rabbi Yehiel of Paris’ student suggests that this is the removal of branches from a tree so that the
tree will grow thicker; the anonymous peirush (commentary) on Moed Katan says that it is the
removal of extra roots.

Mefasegin

Rashi explains this to mean supporting weak branches of the tree (from the word pisga – height –
that is, to lift up); the Ran suggests that it is tying up the branches to help the tree grow; the Meiri
teaches that it is the removal of branches.

3
https://steinsaltz.org/daf/moed3/

11
Mefarkin

Rashi understands that this means removing stones that are weighing down the roots of a tree; the
Meiri suggests that it is the removal of excess leaves.

Me’ashnin

Smoking the trees (fumigation) was done with either regular smoke or sulfur smoke, and its
purpose is the same as current practice – as a pesticide that kills the insects and other destructive
elements on the leaves and the fruit.

The Mishnah allows watering a “ thirsty field” on Shemittah, as it did on Chol

Hamoed.4

The Gemara finds this puzzling, because watering a field is certainly a form of either planting
(according to Rabba) or plowing (according to R’ Yosef). Either way, this is a prohibited activity
on Shabbos, and it should therefore be prohibited on Shemittah.

The Gemara answers by clarifying the rule regarding the laws of Shabbos vis-à-vis the laws of
Shemittah. All agricultural activities are prohibited on Shabbos. This includes avos—actions
which are primary, as defined by Rashi as those which occurred in the Mishkan, as well as
secondary actions— ‫—תולדות‬which are similar to the avos in purpose and concept, but which
technically did not take place in construction of the Mishkan.

On Shemitta, however, only avos activities are prohibited, but ‫ תולדות‬are permitted. The only
exception to this rule is pruning, the only ‫ תולדה‬listed in the Torah explicitly.
Later on, our daf, whether lashes are administered to one who plows on Shemittah is the subject
of a dispute between Rav Yochanan and R’ Elazar.

The Gemara explains that the opinion which exempts plowing from lashes maintains that the only
cases of ‫ תולדות‬which get lashes are those which are listed explicitly, pruning and harvesting
(grapes). Plowing is only a ‫תולדה‬, and it is not listed in the Torah by Shemittah, so it is exempt.
Maharsha notes that although pruning is understandably a ‫ תולדה‬of planting (‫ )זורע‬plowing is
clearly an ‫ אב‬in regard to Shabbos.

Nevertheless, our Gemara refers to it as only a ‫ תולדה‬in reference to Shemittah, because in the
context of Shemittah, plowing is not written explicitly. Sfas Emes adds that earlier, the Gemara
had said that actions which are ‫ תולדות‬on Shabbos are not prohibited on Shemittah

4
https://www.dafdigest.org/masechtos/MoedKatan%20003.pdf

12
However, here, the Gemara changes its expression, and it says that plowing, which is a ‫ תולדה‬is
not liable ( ). This indicates that the words of Maharsha are accurate. Plowing is an ‫ אב‬in
reference to Shabbos, but it is a ‫ תולדה‬in reference to Shemittah, in that it is not explicitly written
in the verse. Accordingly, it is prohibited on Shemittah, but not liable for lashes (according to the
one who exempts the )

He responded: I will say that [at the time of the original enactment] they stipulate that whoever
wants to nullify the decree may come and nullify the decree.

Tosafos (1) explains that Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel were concerned that at some time in the
future the land would be weakened and would not produce its crop without plowing at their
designated times. Therefore, out of concern for the potential loss to the public, they stipulated that
future generations would have the authority to overturn their enactment.

Rabbeinu Yehudah HaChassid (2) records a similar concern in a different context. There was once
a wicked ruler who made a concerted effort to convert all of the Jews under his authority away
from practicing Judaism. The Jews were forced to flee from this area and the members of these
communities wanted to issue a ban to prevent any future generations from living in that area.
The wise man of the community advised against issuing this ban because it would prove to
be a stumbling block for future generations who would want to move into the region. He advised
that the ban should only remain in place while the wicked ruler was alive, and it should not extend
indefinitely.

Rav Ovadiah Yosef (3) employs a similar logic when addressing the issue of living in Spain. He
writes that, according to legend, when the Jews were forced to leave Spain during the time of the
Inquisition, they created a ban against returning to Spain. Rav Yosef cites sources that note that
the Abarbanel and Rav Yosef Karo, both of whom were alive during that time, do not mention the
existence of such a ban. This makes the legend suspect. Additionally, even if one were to be
concerned that such a ban was created, there are sufficient issues of doubt that permit one to visit
the country.

The doubts are:

1) Maybe a ban was never instituted, and even if it was,

2) perhaps it only applied to those who were expelled, and even if the ban included future
generations,

3) perhaps it only applied to their descendants etc. Rav Yosef explains the reason there is the
distinct possibility that a ban was never issued.

13
Any enactment involves a concern similar to the thought expressed in our Tosafos, and the case of
Rabbeinu Yehudah HaChassid, about creating an enactment that could ultimately become a
stumbling block for future generations.

Our daf discusses the mitzvos of Shemittah at length. Rav Aharon of Belz, zt” l, decided to settle
in Tel Aviv. It was always his practice to spend a great deal of time immersed in his spiritual
preparation for davening.

In general, that involved learning a large amount in an enthusiastic voice, and he generally stood
the entire time. One of his daily sedarim was to learn Masseches Berochos from cover to cover!
He never wasted time on mundane matters since he was always busy either learning, davening, or
helping people by offering advice or his blessings. For this reason, it came as a big surprise to his
followers when shortly after settling in, the Rebbe asked his assistants to arrange for the planting
of a garden near his home for his private use. He specified that the garden should contain trees,
vegetables, and flowers. This seemed very uncharacteristic of a tzaddik who was so particular
about not wasting a single moment, or ever casting a frivolous glance.

Those assistants well remembered the Rebbe’s response to a doctor who asked that he gaze at the
sky to enable him to examine the Rebbe’s eyes. “My whole life I have never looked out of my
immediate vicinity, and I don’t plan on changing for the worse at this late date! I am afraid that
you will have to forgo this.” What, then, could such a kadosh want with a garden? But since the
Rebbe had made his request, the gabbaim made sure that a splendorous garden was planted, replete
with fruit, trees, and flowers as ordered. After several years, the garden grew lushly with every
possible source of delight.

The Rebbe announced, “This year is Shemittah. It is time to publicly declare its fruits ownerless.”
He took the time to carefully explain to the workers who tended the garden that since this year is
Shemittah, it was forbidden for them to work there.

The Rebbe’s actions had the effect that he had hoped for when he first came to Tel Aviv. A
wonderful kiddush Hashem was generated, and many who had never meant to do so were
encouraged to observe the halachos of Shemittah!

14
Rav Moshe Taragin writes:5

Before beginning the masekhta proper, an attempt will be made to provide an overarching
sense of Shemitta and its various motifs. A careful reading of the parshiyot in the Torah coupled
with an examination of various themes highlighted by the Meforshim should provide a sharper
sense of the Shemitta experience.

The first mention of Shemitta occurs in Parashat Mishpatim, a parasha dealing primarily
with the social and civil laws vital towards constructing a just and stable society. The various laws
of Choshen Mishpat are geared toward establishing a social ethic and the responsibility of the
judiciary to enforce that ethic. Though the parasha generally refers to society at large, one
particular section focuses upon one sector of society - the destitute. Various halakhot in the
parasha (the return of collateral, not favoring the rich in judicial proceedings, and not accepting
bribes) are all geared toward protecting the rights of those who cannot protect themselves. Amidst
this backdrop the Torah cites the first mention of Shemitta, urging us to abandon the land so that
the impoverished of the nation will be able to eat fruits (which are not gathered and stored, as in
normal years). Interestingly enough, the focus of this parasha is squarely upon the fruits, rather
than the land which produces the fruits.

5
https://etzion.org.il/en/halakha/yoreh-deah/eretz-yisrael/examining-two-shemitta-sections-torah

15
 The Torah legislates that for the first 6 years of the cycle regular work may be performed
and crops may be harvested. On the 7th year, however, the crops should be abandoned and
surrendered ("tishmitena u'netashta") so that the indigent (as well as the animals) may freely
partake of them. Both Rashi and the Ramban are troubled by the redundancy ("tishmitena
u'netashtah") and by the obvious omission of any prohibition regarding working the land itself. To
this degree, they each (based upon the Mekhilta) labor to reinterpret the simple reading of the
pasuk and include some mention of a mitzva concerning the land itself. The Ibn Ezra sees the
repetition as including the laws of shemittat kesafim, thereby ensuring early mention for this law
as well. (Typically, most believe that shemittat kesafim is entirely omitted from Mishpatim and
that its first mention occurs in Behar.) However, there is no denying that the primary focus of this
parasha is upon the fruits, and the Torah's direct intent is to freely provide these fruits to the poor
during Shemitta.

An additional phenomenon unique to Mishpatim is the focus placed upon animals. Not
only may the poor people partake of these 'abandoned' fruits, but so may the 'beasts of the
field.' Man, and his society 'civilize' areas of this world and claim them for human
enterprise. They establish boundaries between society and 'nature'; Mishpatim itself provides a
blueprint toward the maintenance of this society. Key to the survival of that society is the timely
and efficient provision of food. (When this capacity is impeded, society itself is crippled – recall
the one-two punch of barad and arbeh which stripped this function from Egyptian society). Once
in seven years, these boundaries are relaxed. Just as the undesirable boundaries within society
(rich and poor) are removed, so are the external divisions between society and the 'field,' or
between man and beast, temporarily suspended. Indeed, much of the earlier sections of Mishpatim
(particularly the laws of damages and the section detailing shomrim) addressed man and his
domesticated animals - within society. By switching the discussion to include beasts of the field,
the Torah shifts the spotlight from the beginning of the parasha.

By contrast, the section in Behar is addressed to the land which will rest this year. The
section is dotted with mentions of the aretz, and the passage even speaks directly to the
land. Though the Torah begins by speaking to us and delimiting the Shemitta experience to the
period we spent in the land of Israel (Ki Tavo'u el Ha-aretz), it immediately shifts and speaks about
the land and her fruits. While Parashat Mishpatim almost entirely ignored the various types of
work forbidden during Shemitta (focusing exclusively upon the method of gathering crops), Behar
carefully delineates the forms of agricultural activity forbidden during Shemitta. In fact, the Torah
uncharacteristically spells out each and every form of work which is banned, relegating other types
of activity as merely miderabanan (see our daf Mo'ed Katan 3a). Unlike Shabbat, regarding
which the Torah is vague by design, on Shemitta the Torah fully and clearly enumerates, laying
particular emphasis upon the work performed on the land and not just the fruits harvested by human
beings. As if the inherent reference to the land weren't sufficient, the Torah establishes the concept
of a resting experience for the land 4 times (pesukim 2,4,5 & 6). In fact, ensuing sections in
Bechukotai warn us that non-compliance with the Torah will prompt our being sent into exile,
which allows, among other things, the land's compensation for its deserved shemittot which were
ignored during the period of the first Beit Hamikdash ('Az tirtzeh ha-aretz et shabtoteha').

A second dimension which exists only in Behar is the religious or even theological nature
of Shemitta. Hashem's name is completely absent from Mishpatim, while it receives prominent

16
attention in Behar. The phrase 'Shabbat la-Hashem' (repeated twice), as well as the phrase 'Shabbat
Shabatton,' each convey the sense that the practice of Shemitta has religious connotations. The
parasha is threaded with both overt mention of Hashem as well as words pregnant with religious
meaning ('shabbaton'). Unlike Parashat Mishpatim, which ignores Yovel, Behar underscores the
obvious, structural parallels between the two. From a purely social standpoint – at least in terms
of a particular individual - yovel does not provide the same correction that Shemitta
affords. Indeed, at a macro level, the return of lands is vital in avoiding the concentration of
assets. Yet, it may not provide relief for a specific person suffering from poverty. The wait of up
to 49 years can render yovel ineffective to any one person or even for an entire
generation. Mishpatim stresses the utility of Shemitta while paying no attention to yovel. Behar,
which alludes to a theological experience (recognizing Hashem's authority), is able to highlight
the similarity between the two.

A further difference concerns the animals mentioned in each section. As noted earlier, the
beasts of the field are awarded Shemitta-fruits on par with man in Parashat Mishpatim. Behar
describes the same phenomenon but addresses the animals within the domestic context. The Torah
describes the 'shabbat ha-aretz' as providing food for "you, your servant, your handmaid, worker,
temporary resident, as well as your beheima (domesticated animal) and chayah (beast) who resides
in your land." The substance of the Torah's description is not that dissimilar, but the style in which
this halakha is presented in crucial. Unlike Mishpatim, the beheima (normally a word referring to
domesticated animals) appears alongside the chayah, which themselves now live in your land
rather than roaming the field. This entire animal contingent is part of a larger society of various
individuals who inhabit the land as a community and must commemorate Hashem's creation by
experiencing Shemitta. The Torah provides a fairly comprehensive listing of this society but omits
an important member: the poor person. Behar is uninterested in the charitable dimensions of the
Shemitta experience. Unlike Mishpatim, which awarded the fruits of the field to the
underprivileged (poor, wild beasts), Behar makes it clear that: "the food should be for you to eat –
for you, your servant etc."

Obviously, these differences must be further assessed when considering the various themes
behind the Shemitta experience.

Having examined the textual basis for shemitta we will now consider some of the reasons
behind the mitzva.

The Rambam, in his Moreh Nevukhim, (3:39) raises two themes of shemitta. The first, as
presented in last week's shiur, is to "provide generosity and charity for man [needful of such
treatment]." The Rambam cites the phrase from Mishpatim, "Let the needy of your people eat of
[the land]" (23:11), to stress the relief which shemitta undoubtedly provides for the impoverished.
He makes particular mention of shemittat kesafim (the canceling of all debits - see Devarim 15:1-
6), a facet of shemitta which is clearly designed to restore financial stability to those who have
fallen on hard times. In addition, he lumps the social benefits of shemitta together with those which
stems from Yovel (the restoration of sold fields and the emancipation of slaves), all of which he
sees as contributing to a more ethical and fair society. As I mentioned in last week's shiur, this
function is implicit in Parashat Mishpatim and arouses little disagreement. It is interesting to note
that the laws of shemitta were delayed until the land was conquered and fully divided, long after

17
the laws pertaining to the Land of Israel took hold. If indeed shemitta and yovel play crucial roles
in providing checks and balances against an imbalance of wealth, we could easily understand their
postponement until the stage at which the socio-economic reality begins to develop.

The Rambam lists a second and more controversial utility of shemitta-to allow the land a
recess to recover its "strength" and assure continued production. The Akeidat Yitzchak (Vayikra
siman 69) strongly rejects this concept and offers several reasons for its dismissal. The Torah
promises us that if we implement shemitta, the sixth year will provide at least three years’ worth
of crops, ensuring that we have enough to eat and are not threatened by the abstinence from work
during shemitta. If the seventh year were necessary to restore the land's energy, it is unlikely that
the year immediately before would be so prodigious. In addition, the Torah presents extremely
harsh punishments for violating shemitta. Bechukotai promises that we will be exiled from the
land to ensure that if we do not observe shemitta, it recovers its deserved but violated shemitta
years. If shemitta were purely utilitarian, the penalty for non-compliance should not be as severe
and should logically be the gradual weakening of our land and its diminished production. The
severe penalty of exile suggests a more theological notion to shemitta.

The Sefer Ha-chinukh (mitzva 84) does indeed propose these theological themes. The first
idea he raises is the recognition that Hashem created the world in six days. By resting during the
seventh period of a cycle, be it the seventh day of the week or the seventh year of a shemitta cycle,
we constantly commemorate Hashem's creation of the world and consequent authority over it. Of
particular poignancy is the repudiation of ownership (hefker) performed upon the yield of shemitta
which is meant to underscore that Hashem, not the natural system, is behind the production of
these crops. The Chizkuni (Vayikra 25:2) comments on the phrase "shabbat la-Hashem" that our
refrain from work during shemitta demonstrates the fact that Hashem owns the land. In his next
comment he adds, "Don't desist from work merely to improve the land but rather to perform
Hashem's command," rejecting the Rambam's approach. While the Chinukh was interested in
establishing God's having created the world, the Chizkuni points more toward His ownership of it.
In fact, we might now better understand the introduction to this section, "When you enter the land
that I CONFER to you" (25:2). The purpose of shemitta is to remind us of Hashem's ultimate
ownership of the land and the Torah lays clear emphasis upon this facet.

Rashi himself (25:2) probably intends the Chinukh's position when he accents the phrase
"shabbat la-Hashem" and draws the similarity between shemitta and Shabbat. This theme is also
elaborated upon by the Ramban in his commentary to Behar when he notes the obvious parallel
between Shabbat and shemitta, which is labeled Shabbat la-Hashem." The Ramban sees Shabbat
proper as commemorative of the history of creation, while shemitta evokes the history of the world,
which is constantly unfurling to that "seventh day of absolute rest" (yom she-kulo shabbat u-
menucha). Because shemitta symbolizes the implications of creation upon world history, its
violation is so severely punished. It should be noted that the Ramban's view is more cosmological
(history of creation and history of the world), while the Chinukh's position is far more existential
(desisting from work to personally affirm your belief in Hashem's authority).

The Chinukh poses an additional connotation to shemitta: it conditions us to greater

generosity. Keep in mind that unlike the Rambam, the Chinukh is not interested in the socio-
economic benefits of shemitta, but rather the personal character growth which is inevitable for

18
someone who exhibits such selflessness during this experience. In a related sense, the Chinukh
points to the formidable faith which must underlie proper adherence to shemitta. Again, this mitzva
is geared to condition proper traits (generosity and faith) within the human heart and not to provide
economic relief to those who suffer.

The Akeidat Yitzchak offers a novel suggestion when he describes shemitta as a break from
the endless pursuit of monetary wealth. Once in seven years we are given the "opportunity" to
regain our composure and focus upon the truly important pursuits in life. He writes very poetically
about the futility of those who are blinded and enslaved by the lies and mirages of this world.
Hashem provides luminous "candles" for us throughout our "time-experience" by obligating us to
intermittently withdraw from that habituating experience of work and afford ourselves an
opportunity to re-establish our true priorities. The Akeidat Yitzchak's comments are clearly a
timeless message not only about shemitta, but more importantly about Shabbat itself. Whether this
notion is conveyed by the text of Behar, however, is highly questionable.

The Abarbanel Nachalat Avot 5:11) is dissatisfied with the Akeidat Yitzchak's view
primarily because it places too much emphasis upon a human need. The mitzvot serve more
transcendent goals, and any benefit for human experience is merely incidental. True shemitta does
provide this "wakeup," but it must possess a more essential and central motif. In the back of the
Abarbanel's mind is the constant reference to the land and the extreme punishment of exile for
shemitta violation. He claims that just as the Jewish people have been chosen, so too the land of
Israel enjoys unique status INDEPENDENT of the fact that the people of Israel live there. In fact,
Avraham was directed to relocate to Israel and receive prophecy even before a nation had
developed. This unique status shared by both the people and the land of Israel require that both
testify and announce Hashem's creation of the world by resting during a seventh cycle. People
work on a daily schedule, so the seventh day is selected as a day of testament. Land, which operates
on a yearly schedule, must exclaim Hashem's ownership every seventh year. It is truly an
experience which is centered upon the land, and which only incidentally affects man and his
behavior. In fact, exile is not a punishment as much as an unpaid debt. By working the land during
shemitta, we prevent it from performing its duty and must be evicted to allow the land to
compensate.

The novelty in the Abarbanel is in the emphasis he lays upon the land as an independent
force in the shemitta process.

19
 Shemittah revisited
The laws of Shmita - the seventh year in Israel and over seas

Rabbi Yirmiyohu Kaganoff writes:6

How can we pass Parshas Behar without discussing the laws of shemittah? And the fact that we
read these laws annually teaches that the Torah wants us to understand the lessons of shemittah
every year. Yet many chutz la’aretz residents see no need to learn these laws, assuming that they
are not relevant.

Well, guess again. Although halacha prohibits exporting shemittah produce outside Israel
(Mishnah Shevi’is 6:5), much produce finds its way there. And even in chutz la’aretz we must
treat fruit of Eretz Yisrael with kedushas shevi’is according to all of the laws we will now discuss.

Situation #1: WHAT A ROAST!!

When I was a rav in America, a knowledgeable housewife cooked a delectable roast using wine
whose label indicated that it had kedushas shevi’is. Although she had no idea what this term meant,

6
https://www.yeshiva.co/midrash/21130

20
her son pointed out that they needed to ask a shaylah what to do with the roast. To make a long
story short, the entire roast had to be treated with kedushas shevi’is; I will soon explain what this
means.

Situation #2: WHAT ARE SEFICHIN?

"I noticed a sign in shul that the fruits and vegetables in the local supermarket are from Israel and
must be treated appropriately. Someone told me that the vegetables are sefichin. What does that
mean?"

Situation #3: HETER MECHIRAH

Several shemittah cycles ago I was working as a mashgiach for a properly run American hechsher.
One factory that I supervised used to manufacture breading and muffin mixes. This company was
extremely careful about checking its incoming ingredients: George, the receiving clerk who also
managed the warehouse, kept a careful list of what products he was to allow into the plant and
what kosher symbols were acceptable.

On one visit to the plant, I noticed a problem due to no fault of the company. For years, the
company had been purchasing Israeli produced freeze-dried carrots with a reliable hechsher. The
carrots always arrived in bulk boxes with the Israeli hechsher prominently stamped in Hebrew and
the word KOSHER prominently displayed in English. George, who supervised incoming raw
materials, proudly showed me through "his warehouse" and noted how he carefully marked the
arrival date of each new shipment. I saw crates of the newest shipment of Israeli carrots, from the
same manufacturer, and the same prominently displayed English word KOSHER on the box.
However, the Hebrew stamp on the box was from a different supervisory agency, one without the
same sterling reputation. The reason for the sudden change in supervisory agency was rather
obvious when I noted that the Hebrew label stated very clearly "Heter Mechirah."

First, let us discuss the basics:

LAWS OF THE LAND

In this week’s parsha, the Torah (Vayikra 25:1-7) teaches that every seventh year is shemittah; we
are prohibited from working the land of Eretz Yisrael and must leave our land fallow (Avodah
Zarah 15b). Just as observing the seventh day, Shabbos, demonstrates our belief in the Creator, so
too, observing every seventh year as shemittah demonstrates this faith. The landowner must treat
whatever grows as ownerless, allowing others to enter his field or orchard to pick and take its
produce. They may take as much as their family will eat, and the landowner himself also may take
this amount (see Rambam, Hilchos Shemittah 4:1).

21
LAWS OF THE FRUIT

Although shemittah observance today is mandated only miderabbanan (see Moed Katan 2b;
Chazon Ish, Shevi’is 3:8), nevertheless, most of its laws are the same as they will be when
observing shemittah will again become a mitzvah min hatorah. The Torah imbues shemittah
produce with special sanctity, called kedushas shevi’is, declaring veho’yesah shabbas ha’aretz
lachem le’ochlah, "the produce of the shemittah should be used only for food" (Vayikra 25:6).
According to accepted opinion, one is not obligated to eat shemittah food – rather, the Torah grants
us permission to eat it, and we must treat it accordingly (Chazon Ish, Hilchos Shevi’is 14:10).
There is much halachic detail involved in the correct use of shemittah produce. For example:

I. One may not sell shemittah produce as one would usually do in business (Rambam, Hilchos
Shemittah 6:1). Although one may pick shemittah produce for one’s personal consumption, one
may not harvest it to sell commercially (Tosefta, Shevi’is 5:7).

II. One may not export shemittah produce outside Eretz Yisrael (Mishnah Shevi’is 6:5). There are
some opinions that allow exporting shemittah wine and esrogim, although the rationales permitting
this are beyond the scope of this article (Beis Ridbaz 5:18; Tzitz Hakodesh, Volume 1 #15:4).

III. Shemittah produce is intended for Jewish consumption; one may not give or sell kedushas
shevi’is produce to a gentile, although one may have him join you in a meal at which shemittah
produce is served (Rambam, Hilchos Shemittah 5:13 and Mahari Korkos ad loc.).

IV. If one trades or sells the shemittah produce, the food or money received in exchange also has
kedushas shevi’is (Sukkah 40b).

V. One may not intentionally ruin shemittah produce (Pesachim 52b).

What types of "ruining" did the Torah prohibit? One may not cook foods that are usually eaten
raw, nor may one eat raw produce that is usually cooked (Yerushalmi, Shevi’is 8:2; Rambam,
Hilchos Shevi’is 5:3). Therefore, one may not eat raw shemittah potatoes, nor may one cook
shemittah cucumbers or oranges. Contemporary authorities dispute whether one may add
shemittah orange or apricot to a recipe for roast or cake. Even though the roast or cake is delicious
because of the added fruit, many poskim prohibit this cooking or baking since this fruit are usually
eaten raw (Shu’t Mishpat Cohen #85). Others permit this if it is a usual way of eating these fruits
(Mishpetei Aretz page 172, footnote 10).

22
SPOILED TURTLE
One may feed shemittah produce to animals only if it is considered unfit for human consumption.
This includes varieties grown for fodder, as well as peels and seeds that people do not usually eat
(Rambam, Hilchos Shemittah 5:5). During the last shemittah, a neighbor of mine, whose pet turtle
usually eats lettuce, had a problem what to feed it. Before shemittah he was trying to get it to eat
grass, but the turtle preferred lettuce.

Similarly, juicing vegetables and most kinds of fruit is considered "ruining" the shemittah produce
and prohibited, although one may press grapes, olives and lemons since the juice and oil of these
fruits are considered improvements. Many contemporary authorities permit pressing oranges and
grapefruits provided one treats the remaining pulp with kedushas shevi’is. Even these authorities
prohibit juicing most other fruit, such as apples and pears (Minchas Shelomoh, Shevi’is pg. 185).

RUINING VERSUS EATING

How do we determine whether processing a food “ruin” it or not? Many poskim contend that if
the processing changes the food’s preferred bracha, one may not process shevi’is produce this way
(Shu’t Mishpat Cohen #85, based on Brachos 38a and Rambam, Hilchos Shevi’is 5:3). Since
turning apples to juice reduces their bracha from ha’eitz to shehakol, this would be considered
"ruining" the apples. Similarly, the fact that one recites the bracha of shehakol prior to eating a
raw potato or cooked cucumbers or oranges demonstrates that treating them this way ruins the
produce. According to this approach, one may not press oranges or grapefruits either since one
recites shehakol and not ha’eitz on the juice (Shu’t Mishpat Cohen #85).

Those who permit squeezing oranges and grapefruits apply a different criterion, contending that
since this is the most common use of these fruit it is permitted (Minchas Shelomoh, Shevi’is, page
185).

One must certainly be careful not to actively destroy shemittah produce. Therefore, one who has
excess shevi’is produce may not trash it. Peels that are commonly eaten, such as cucumber or
apple, still have shemittah kedusha and may not simply be disposed. Instead, these peels are placed
in a plastic bag which is then placed into a small bin or box called a pach shevi’is, where it remains
until the food is inedible. When it decomposes to this extent, one may dispose of the shemittah
produce in the regular trash.

When eating shemittah food, one need not be concerned about the remaining bits stuck to a pot or
an adult’s plate that one usually just washes off; one may wash these pots and plates without

23
concern that one is destroying shemittah produce. However, the larger amounts left behind by
children or leftovers that people might save should not be disposed in the trash but should be
scraped into the shemittah bin.

WHY DECOMPOSE?

This leads us to a question: If indeed one may not throw shemittah produce in the trash because it
has sanctity, why may one do so after the produce decomposes? Does decomposition remove
kedusha?

Indeed it does. Kedushas shevi’is means that as long as the food is still edible, one may not make
it inedible or use it atypically. This is because shemittah food is meant to be eaten, even though
there is no requirement to do so. However, once the shemittah food is inedible, it loses its special
status, and may be disposed of as trash.

SANCTITY UNTIL SPOILAGE

This sounds very strange. Where do we find that something holy loses its special status when it
becomes inedible?

Although the concept that decay eliminates sanctity seems unusual, this is only because we are
unfamiliar with the mitzvos where this principle applies. Other mitzvos where this concept exists
are terumah, challah, bikkurim, revai’i and maaser sheini, all cases where we do not consume the
produce today because we are tamei (Rambam, Hilchos Terumos Chapter 11; Hilchos Maaser
Sheini 3:11). Of these types of produce that are holy, but meant to be eaten, only shevi’is may be
eaten by someone tamei. Even though someone tamei may not consume tahor terumah, challah, or
maaser sheini, one also may not dispose of them or even burn them. Instead, one must place them
in a secure place until they decay and only then dispose of them (Tur, Yoreh Deah 331). (We burn
the special challah portion after separating it only because it has become tamei. If it did not become
tamei, we could not destroy the challah portion, but would have to place it somewhere until it
decays on its own, just as we do with unused shevi’is produce.)

A SHEMITTAH ROAST IN AMERICA

We can now explore the first question I mentioned:

1a: May one use shemittah wine to season a roast?

24
Although one improves the roast by adding the wine, the wine itself is ruined. Thus, some poskim
prohibit using the wine in this way, whereas others permit it since this is a normal use for wine
(see commentaries to Yerushalmi, Terumos 11:1).

1b: What does our American housewife do with her shemittah wine-flavored roast?

If one uses shemittah food as an ingredient, one must treat everything that absorbs its taste
according to the laws of kedushas shevi’is (see Mishnah Shevi’is 7:7). Therefore, one who used
shemittah potatoes in cholent or shemittah onions or bay leaves in soup must treat the entire cholent
or soup according to shevi’is rules. One may not actively waste this food, nor may one feed any
of it to animals until the food is spoiled to the point that people would not eat it.

Therefore, our housewife who added shemittah wine to her roast must now consider the entire
roast, even the gravy and vegetables cooked with it, to have kedushas shevi’is. One serves the roast
in the regular way. As mentioned above, the small scrapings left on an adult’s plate may be washed
off; but the larger amounts left behind by children should not be disposed in the trash, nor should
the leftovers in the pot or on the platter.

Just as one may not dispose of the leftover kedushas shevi’is roast in the trash, it is unclear whether
one may remove these leftovers from the refrigerator in order to hasten their decay, even to place
them in a shemittah bin (see Chazon Ish, Shevi’is 14:10). However, if one removed leftover roast
to serve, one is not required to return the leftovers to the refrigerator. One may not trash the
leftovers, but instead one may place the leftovers somewhere until they have spoiled. To avoid the
malodor that this may cause, one may place them in a plastic bag until they decay and then dispose
of them.

SEFICHIN

The Torah permits the use of produce that grew by itself without anyone working the field during
shemittah. Unfortunately, even in the days of Chazal one could find Jews who deceitfully ignored
shemittah laws. One practice of unscrupulous farmers was to plant grain or vegetables, marketing
them as produce that grew on its own. To make certain that these farmers did not benefit from their
misdeeds, Chazal forbade all grains and vegetables, even those that grew by themselves, a
prohibition called sefichin, or plants that sprouted. Sefichin are treated as non-kosher food and
forbidden to eat, even requiring one to kasher the equipment that was used to cook them!

Chazal made several exceptions to this rule, including that produce of a non-Jew’s field is not
prohibited as sefichin.

25
At this point, we should address the second question I mentioned:

"I noticed a sign in shul that some fruits and vegetables in the local supermarket are from Israel
and must be treated appropriately. Someone told me that the vegetables are prohibited because
they are sefichin. What does that mean?"

In all likelihood, the growers of this produce relied on heter mechirah, a topic I dealt with
extensively in a different article, but which I will touch on here. (Contact me by e-mail if you
would like to read that article.) The authorities who rely on heter mechirah permit most of the
fieldwork to be performed only by gentiles. However, in contemporary practice, most Jewish
landowners who rely on heter mechirah sell their land to a gentile, but then work it as their own.
As a practical matter, few contemporary chareidi poskim permit heter mechirah, and, even among
non-chareidi authorities, support for its use is waning, although there are still some who permit it.
Thus, if the heter mechirah is considered a charade and not a valid sale, the grain and vegetables
growing in a heter mechirah field are prohibited as sefichin. Most, but not all, chareidi poskim
today consider vegetables grown through heter mechirah to be prohibited sefichin that are
forbidden to eat, although one will find different opinions whether one must kasher equipment
used to cook such vegetables.

WHY NOT FRUIT?

When Chazal prohibited sefichin, they only included in the prohibition crops that are planted
annually. They did not extend the prohibition of sefichin to tree fruits and other perennial crops,
such as bananas and strawberries, because there was less incentive for a cheating farmer. Although
trees definitely thrive when pruned and cared for, they will produce even if left unattended for a
year. Thus, the farmer had less incentive to tend his trees.

"GUARDED PRODUCE"

I mentioned above that a farmer must allow others free access to help themselves to any produce
that grows on his trees and fields during shemittah. What is the halacha if a farmer treats this
produce as his own and refuses access to it during shemittah?

The Rishonim dispute whether this will make the fruit forbidden. Some contemporary poskim
prohibit the use of heter mechirah fruit on the basis that, since heter mechirah is invalid, this fruit
is now considered "guarded," and therefore forbidden. Other poskim permit the fruit because they
rule that the forbidden working of an orchard or treating it as private property does not prohibit its

26
fruit (see Shu’t Igros Moshe, Orach Chayim 1:186). Thus, even if one does not consider the heter
mechirah to be valid, the fruit might be permitted but must be treated with kedushas shevi’is.

What about our carrot muffins? If we remember our original story, the company had unwittingly
purchased heter mechirah carrots. The hechsher required the company to return all unopened boxes
of carrots to the supplier and to find an alternative source. However, by the time I discovered the
problem, muffin mix using these carrots had been produced bearing the hechsher’s kashrus symbol
and were already distributed. The hechsher referred the shaylah to its posek, asking whether they
were required to recall the product from the stores as non-kosher, or whether it was sufficient to
advertise that an error occurred and allow the customer to ask his individual rav for halachic
guidance.

For someone living in Eretz Yisrael, observing shemittah properly involves assuming much
halachic responsibility and education, and often great commitment, since shemittah-permitted
produce may be more expensive than its alternative. Those living in chutz la’aretz should be aware
of the halachos of shevi’is and identify with this very public demonstration and "declaration" that
the Ribbono Shel Olam created the world in seven days.

Y. Dov Krakowski writes:7

7
https://oukosher.org/blog/consumer-kosher/everything-need-know-shemittah/

27
While shemittah (the Sabbatical year of the land) has unfortunately become a hot political topic
in modern-day Israel, it is important to remember that shemittah is actually a mitzvah with its
own set of halachot. It is especially vital for the American tourist or student who will be spending
the year in Israel learning in yeshivah or seminary to get a firm grasp of the mitzvah and its
practical applications.

Which activities are forbidden during the shemittah year?

During shemittah, it is Biblically prohibited for a Jew to sow, plant or prune the produce of the
Land as well as to harvest it. The rabbis went a step further and forbade any working of the land
as well (such as fertilizing, et cetera). In order to enforce the prohibition against sowing and
planting, Chazal forbade the consumption of anything that was sown or planted in
the shemittah year. To avoid false claims of incidental sprouting, Chazal also forbade the
consumption of all annual plants (i.e., plants that must be planted each year, such as most
vegetables) that sprouted during the Sabbatical year, even if they sprouted on their own. Plants
that are forbidden to be eaten during shemittah are called sfichin.

Plants that need not be replanted every year (known as perennials), such as trees, take time to
mature and do not bear fruit for some time after planting. They therefore are not suspected of
having been planted during shemittah. Thus, fruits that grow during the shemittah year can be
consumed as they are not considered sfichin.

Interestingly, while shemittah is a Biblical commandment, nowadays (according to most opinions,

including that of the Shulchan Aruch), it is considered a rabbinic mitzvah. The Biblical obligation
is only in effect when a majority of the Jewish people live in the Land of Israel. Additionally, some
authorities are of the opinion that shemittah only has the status of a Biblical commandment when
there is a functioning Sanhedrin, authoritative court in Jerusalem.

Which activities are permitted during shemittah?

As mentioned above, the rabbis prohibited any working of the land. Nonetheless, it is permissible
to perform activities to save a plant or tree from dying. Therefore, one is permitted to water his
lawn. In order to make it obvious that one is watering just to ensure that the grass doesn’t die, he

28
shouldn’t water it frequently. When one does water it, he can use as much water as he would like.
One should not, however, use fertilizer, as the purpose of fertilizer is not to keep the grass from
dying but to enhance its growth.

While one cannot prune his plants, he can trim them so that they don’t get in the way. One can
also mow one’s lawn when the grass gets overly long.

What is kedushat shevi’it?

The Torah mandates that all produce that grows by itself, that is, produce that grows without
cultivation during the shemittah year, must be declared ownerless. (This produce is known as
“shemittah produce.”) Moreover, anyone can take what he or she needs from
another’s shemittah produce. Produce grown on Jewish-owned land during shemittah,
intentionally or not, has kedushah (holiness) and is considered kedushat shevi’it. This is because
the shemittah year is sanctified to Hashem.

The Torah prohibits harvesting produce during shemittah. Nonetheless, since the Torah tells us
that the shemittah produce that we are permitted to consume (the products of perennial plants such
as fruits) is l’achlah—to be eaten—one is permitted to harvest enough for oneself and one’s family
to eat in the near future. In ancient times, Jews who lived in Eretz Yisrael would actually take
advantage of shemittah and take produce from all the fields and vineyards. Nowadays, however,
this benefit of shemittah is nearly obsolete, primarily because most of us live in cities where we
rely on retailers to obtain fruits and vegetables. As mentioned, the Torah states that
the shemittah produce is to be eaten. The rabbis understood this to mean that we cannot do
anything with shemittah produce other than consume it.

How should one obtain fruits and vegetables during the shemittah year?

Since for the modern consumer in Israel going from field to field and picking fruits and vegetables
isn’t a realistic option, there are various halachically approved ways to buy produce during
the shemittah year. In this article, we will concentrate on the more popular options.

What is heter mechirah?

29
In the nineteenth century, when Jews began resettling the land in significant numbers, the
population was on the verge of starving. Due to the dire situation, many prominent rabbinic leaders
endorsed what is known as heter mechirah, which permits the sale of Jewish-owned land to non-
Jews for the duration of the shemittah year. According to many opinions, produce grown on land
owned by a non-Jew does not have kedushat shevi’it. While this system bypasses many of the
hardships posed by shemittah, executing a valid land sale to a non-Jew for a year is no simple
matter from a halachic standpoint. Many rabbinic authorities feel that heter mechirah should only
be used if there are no other options.

Another concern raised by the heter mechirah is that Jews are not supposed to sell land in Eretz
Yisrael to non-Jews (Avodah Zarah 20a). Various heteirim can be applied here. Many believe that
while one is not permitted to sell land in Eretz Yisrael to a non-Jew, if the sale ultimately
helps yishuv Eretz Yisrael—Jewish settlement in Israel—it is permissible. Another solution
endorsed by many rabbinic figures, including Rav Yitzchak Elchanan Spektor, is leasing, instead
of selling, the land for a year. It is somewhat unclear, however, if produce grown on land leased
to a non-Jew but owned by a Jew has kedushat shevi’it.

Yet another complication is that the farmer not only has to sell the land, but he also needs to hire
non-Jewish workers to perform the prohibited activities. However, some rabbinic authorities
permit Jewish farmers to engage in rabbinically prohibited activities on non-Jewish owned land.
Since there are various problems associated with the heter mechirah, many prefer not to rely on it.

What is the otzar beit din system?

While many of the approaches to circumventing the difficulties posed by shemittah are convenient,
the majority of them do not afford us the opportunity to eat shemittah produce, which, as we
mentioned earlier, is sanctified with kedushat shevi’it. (One should actually relish
consuming shemittah produce because it is holy.) What’s unique about the otzar beit din option is
that it does provide the opportunity to eat shemittah produce.

Essentially, otzar beit din is a distribution system run by a rabbinic court. Here’s how it works:
the beit din hires the farmers themselves as its agents to tend to and harvest the crops. Farmers are
hired to engage only in activities that are permitted during the shemittah year, as explained earlier.

30
(Hence, they are allowed to water the trees to ensure that they don’t die, and they can pick the fruit.
But they cannot fertilize the tree to enhance its growth, for example.)

The beit din appoints middlemen to distribute the produce. While the beit din is not permitted to
make a profit off this fruit, it can set a price that will cover the expenses involved in executing the
aforementioned, paying the farmers and the middlemen a fee.

This system is an excellent option when properly organized and supervised. Since produce sold in
the otzar beit din systems have kedushat shevi’it, special care must be taken to ensure that the
farmers do not perform any of the prohibited activities in the fields in order to reap a bountiful
harvest. Additionally, prices and selling conditions must be tightly controlled by the beit din.

What is matza menutak?

Kedushat shevi’it and shemittah prohibitions don’t apply to plants that are grown indoors (in pots
or containers without holes in the bottom). Consequently, various techniques of mass growing in
specially made greenhouses have become another popular way to circumvent the laws
of shemittah. Known as matza menutak, literally, detached platform, this technique entails
growing produce detached from the ground—such as in hot houses with thick plastic sheeting
separating the vegetables from the soil. As this heter is somewhat more complex, it is very
important that it be supervised by a reliable rabbi.

Where do the laws of shemittah apply?

The laws of shemittah only apply in halachic Israel. Thus, shemittah isn’t necessarily applicable
to all parts of modern-day Israel. Eilat, for example, isn’t part of halachic Israel and therefore one
may plant, grow and harvest produce there during shemittah.

Is all produce grown in Eretz Yisrael during the shemittah year regarded as kedushat shevi’it?

Depends. All produce grown on Jewish-owned land in Eretz Yisrael during shemittah qualifies
as shemittah produce. Whether or not produce grown on land owned by a non-Jew in Eretz Yisrael
has the status of kedushat shevi’it is a matter of controversy. Since many halachic authorities
maintain that non-Jewish produce doesn’t have kedushat shevi’it, purchasing non-Jewish produce
is another option.

31
How is one supposed to treat fruit with the status of kedushat shevi’it?

Because of its special status, shemittah produce must be treated with respect. Such produce cannot
be wasted. Edible leftovers, including the edible peels of produce such as apples and cucumbers,
cannot be discarded. Avocado and kiwi peels, on the other hand, which are inedible, may be
discarded. Leftovers that cannot be discarded should be left to rot first and only afterward may
they be thrown away. More lenient opinions state that such leftovers can be double wrapped and
then thrown away.

Another restriction on shemittah produce is that one cannot cook an item that is usually eaten raw
(an orange) or eat an item that is usually cooked in its raw form (a potato). Some halachic
authorities allow produce that is often eaten raw but sometimes cooked, like an apple, to be
consumed in either form.

It is important to remember that one may not purchase shemittah produce.

When shemittah produce is purchased, the money that was used in the transaction attains a
sanctified status as well. This “sanctified money” may not be used for any other purchases.

Moreover, shemittah produce cannot be taken out of Eretz Yisrael. That means that if you buy a
bottle of otzar beit din wine, it will have the status of kedushat shevi’it. Make sure to drink it in
Israel and not bring it home with you to Chutz La’Aretz. (However, if you mistakenly bring it
to Chutz La’Aretz, you may still drink it.)

This year, after Rosh Hashanah 5775, try to visit Eretz Yisrael and partake of the privilege of
eating kedushat shevi’it—sanctified food from the Land of Israel.

32
 Yedidya Sinclair writes: 8

8
This essay is from The Peoplehood Papers, volume 14 – Sustainability and Jewish Peoplehood – published by the Center

for Jewish Peoplehood Education. https://ejewishphilanthropy.com/a-sabbath-for-the-land-and-the-people-rav-kooks-

shabbat-haaretz-and-the-peoplehood-potential-of-shmita/

33
 “As Farmers and Field Rest, a Land Grows Restless”

The current shmita (Sabbatical) year, 2014-5 represents a remarkable renewal of the possibilities
of shmita. After several decades in which the public face of shmita in Israel has been manifested
in deepening disputes between rabbis and religious communities over kosher certification, the
present shmita year has seen a proliferation of programs that stress the sustainability and social
justice dimensions of shmita.

This shift enables shmita to become a unifying force in the life of the Jewish people. Whereas
previously, shmita was, for diaspora Jews, mostly irrelevant (and occasionally embarrassing, when
awareness of the political-religious squabbles around shmita in Israel intruded on the wider world,
such as in the 2007 Times article) now shmita in Israel is beginning to express values that many
diaspora Jews share and embrace.

I have been fortunate to view this shift over the past year through the prism of producing a book
comprising an annotated translation of Rav Kook’s “Shabbat Ha’aretz,” a key, classic text
on shmita. Preparing and promoting this book has included speaking at conferences on shmita in
Israel, the UK and US, and undertaking a two-week, ten city speaking tour to talk about the book
in the US. This journey took me to synagogues and JCCs, farms and federations, rabbinical schools
and environmental organizations, from Orthodox to Reconstructionist and audiences with a very
wide range of political views on Israel. From this perspective I have been able to view the response
of diverse Jewish communities to the renewal of shmita.

In this short reflection, I will first briefly outline the nature and importance of Rav Kook’s work
on shmita, then list a couple of personal observations on the peoplehood-related significance of
the current shmita year.

Shabbat Ha’aretz, published by Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook on the eve of the 1909-10 shmita year,
is undoubtedly the most important and influential book on shmita to have appeared in the modern
era. It is indispensable to understanding how shmita is currently observed and not observed. The

34
context, arguments and aftermath of Shabbat Ha’aretz remain formative forces upon the status
of shmita in the State of Israel today.

In advance of the 1909-10 shmita, Rav Kook, who was then Chief Rabbi of Jaffa, saw that the
rigorous observance of the commandment to cease agricultural work for a year could starve the
pioneering Jewish farmers and uproot the precarious foothold they had established in the Land of
Israel. He therefore permitted the farmers to sell their land to non-Jews for the duration of
the shmita, allowing them to work and avoid impoverishment. This permit, known as the Heter
Mechirah had first been issued for the pioneering farmers of Israel during the shmita of 1888-9.

In Shabbat Ha’aretz, Rav Kook provided a thorough halachic grounding of the practice, which
had the effect of essentially institutionalizing the heter (permit). Within the book is a rigorous and
detailed halachic treatment of what was and wasn’t to be done in the shmita of 1909-10 and why.
However, Rav Kook prefaced the book with an introduction that is a poetic and mystical paean to
the possibilities of shmita. The introduction is an ecstatic effort to render the reminder, as vivid as
possible, of what shmita could one day become.

35
In the prefatory section, Rav Kook paints a picture of Shmita as enabling a renewed connection to
the divine life force in each individual and within us collectively. Like Shabbat, shmita quiets the
tumult of the intervening periods and restores a more authentic relationship to us, to each other, to
nature, and to God. Its observance reveals the unique weave of socio-economic relationships that
the Torah would have us pattern. The Jubilee year is a revelation of the cumulative insight and
holiness that we will have achieved in the previous seven shmita cycles. Its ideals of liberty and
emancipation bear universal meanings for the whole of humanity.

Shabbat Ha’aretz became a defining piece of Religious Zionist psak halachah (halachic decision-
making) and has served as a lightning rod for controversy between Religious Zionists and Haredim
about the proper parameters of halachic innovation in Israel – hence the growing controversy. Yet

36
throughout Shabbat Ha’aretz, shines a vision of how shmita could be much more than it is today.
Rav Kook believed in the power for social and spiritual reawakening embodied in shmita. He
hoped that the temporary leniency he was proposing – enabling the land to be sold
and shmita effectively not observed – was actually one step on the journey towards the eventual
and full renewal of shmita. As he wrote in Shabbat Ha’aretz: “We must recognize that we are
obligated to strive with all our strength so that in the end the sabbatical year will be increasingly
observed in all its holiness.”

I conclude with two anecdotal observations based on my recent experience as a bridge between
the Israeli and Diaspora experiences of preparing for and beginning shmita.

First, news of the shift towards socially and environmentally progressive shmita projects in Israel
was met with tremendous enthusiasm and excitement at the US venues I visited. The
current shmita year represents a sea change from the main mode of observing shmita in Israel,
which was, in one way or another, by not observing it, towards an era where Israelis are starting
to seriously ask, “how do we actually observe shmita? How do we actualize these extraordinary
values and teachings in hi-tech based economy?” Initiatives such as a joint project of government
banks and NGOs to bring 5,000 families out of crippling long-term debt through a combination of
partial debt relief, rescheduling of loans and counseling on financial planning have proliferated.
They represent creative adaptations of core shmita values to a 21st century economy.

Most of the audiences I spoke to leaned toward the left of the American Jewish political spectrum
where environmental concern tends to correlate (for complex reasons) with a critical stance
towards Israel. Among these audiences, I sensed a feeling of desperation to learn of developments
in Israel with which they could proudly identify. These innovations in shmita served that purpose.
Moreover, there has been a resurgence of interest in shmita both in Israel and in the Diaspora.
While these movements have emerged in parallel, they have benefited from a cross-pollination of
ideas through the recent Siach conferences, which brought together social justice and
environmental activists from Israel and the Diaspora for annual discussions. Shmita is simply an
idea whose time has come, and with its creative growth both in Israel and the Diaspora, has unique

37
potential to promote the value of peoplehood that spans geography, politics and other axes of
division.

Hazon’s publication of Rav Kook’s Introduction to Shabbat Ha’Aretz, translated

by Rabbi Julian Sinclair. This is the first-ever English translation of the
introduction to Rav Kook’s book on shmita (Biblical sabbatical year). Rabbi
Abraham Isaac Kook was the first Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of the land of Israel
in the 20th century. His essay, written in 1909, is lyrical and mystical, a
meditation on the big themes that underlie religious environmentalism.

RAV KOOK’S INTRODUCTION TO SHABBAT HA’ARETZ9

Rav Kook's Introduction to Shabbat Ha'Aretz is the first-ever English translation of the
introduction to a book on shmita (Biblical sabbatical year) by Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, first

9
https://shmitaproject.org/resources/shabbat-haaretz/

38
Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of the land of Israel in the 20th century. His essay, written in 1909, is
lyrical and mystical, a meditation on the big themes that underlie religious environmentalism.

We are proud to share Hazon’s publication of Rav Kook’s Introduction to Shabbat Ha’Aretz,
translated by Rabbi Julian Sinclair. This is the first-ever English translation of the introduction to
Rav Kook’s book on shmita (Biblical sabbatical year). Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook was the first
Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of the land of Israel in the 20th century. His essay, written in 1909, is
lyrical and mystical, a meditation on the big themes that underlie religious environmentalism.

Rav Kook wrote a century ago that “the old will be made new, and the new made holy.” Our goal
for this book is, in similar vein, to make Jewish spiritual approaches to caring for the planet more
accessible to English-reading environmentalists — and open up environmental thinking to
traditional religious audiences who may not have woken up to it before now. Introduction to
Shabbat Ha’aretz offers a Jewish spiritual approach to the moral life of our physical world – and
a lens to see our care for creation in terms deeply grounded in Torah and Jewish thought.

What can shmita – the biblical sabbatical year and the agricultural cycle of which it is a key part –
mean for the modern world? Rav Kook advocated for new halakhic approaches to shmita in the
context of the Zionist agricultural revival in this 1909 essay which prefaces his book Shabbat
Ha’aretz (Sabbath of the Land). His essay is a classic of authentic religious environmentalism, a
meditation on the relationship between ancient legal structures and the deep spiritual life that they
embody.

This beautiful new setting of the Hebrew text, accompanied by Rabbi Julian Sinclair’s new
translation and notes, makes the complexity of Rav Kook’s language and thought accessible to
English readers for the first time. It is accompanied by Rabbi Sinclair’s own introductions to the
traditional conception of the sabbatical cycle; to Rav Kook’s life, mystical thought, and
relationship to the modern return to Jewish agriculture; and to the ways Jewish tradition can speak
to issues of land use, social justice, and climate-change activism in the twenty-first century.

Hazon’s motto is “the Torah is a commentary on the world, and the world is a commentary on
the Torah,” which reflects our determination to apply Jewish thought to some of the greatest
challenges of our time – and our belief that the act of doing so is good not only for the world but
also for the renewal of Jewish life itself. Our publication of this book and our work on Shmita
reflect of our efforts to strive toward these goals.

http://hazon.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Shmita_Sourcebook_First_Edition_Oct2013.pdf

39
 “When you come to the land that I am giving you, the land must be given a
rest, a sabbath to God. For six years you may plant your fields, prune your
vineyards, and harvest your crops. But the seventh year is a sabbath of
sabbaths for the land.” (Lev. 25:1-4)

Behar: The Hetter Mechirah for the Sabbatical Year

Rav Kook Torah

A Brief History of the Hetter Mechirah10

10
http://www.ravkooktorah.org/BEHAR_65.htm

40
As the Jewish people began to return to the Land of Israel in the late 1800’s, establishing farms
and moshavot (agricultural settlements), the question of letting fields lie fallow during the
sabbatical year became — for the first time in many centuries — a burning issue. With the
approach of the sabbatical year in 1889, the Jewish settlers turned to the rabbinate to issue
a hetter (permit) to allow them to continue working their lands during the seventh year, so that the
young and fragile agricultural settlements would not collapse.
In response, three respected scholars met in Vilna and designed a hetter mechirah, based on
temporarily selling the land to a non-Jew over the sabbatical year. The hetter was approved by
Rabbi Yitzchak Elchanan Spector, chief rabbi of Kovno and the pre-eminent Halachic authority of
the time.
During the sabbatical years of 1889, 1896, and 1903, many of the new settlements utilized
the hetter. However, a number of highly respected scholars vociferously opposed the leniency.
Among the opponents were the Beit HaLevy (Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik), the Netziv (Rabbi
Naftali Zvi Yehuda Berlin), and Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch.

The Sabbatical Year of 5670 (1909-1910)

In 1904, Rav Kook arrived in Eretz Yisrael, serving as chief rabbi of Jaffa and the surrounding
moshavot. Leading up to the sabbatical year of 1910, Rav Kook took a forceful position defending
the hetter mechirah. He penned a treatise entitled Shabbat Ha'Aretz which explained the legal
reasoning behind the permit, along with a discussion of the laws for the sabbatical year.
While Rav Kook was an original and creative thinker, he usually took a relatively conservative
position in Halachic matters. What lead him to support the lenient position in
the hetter mechirah controversy? We can learn much about his underlying concerns from letters
that he wrote during this time. The following quotes are taken from letters in the first volume
of Igrot HaRe’iyah.

Motives for Supporting the Hetter

While still in Russia, Rav Kook and his father-in-law, Rabbi Eliyahu David Rabinowitz-Teomim
(known as the Aderet, rabbi of Ponevez and later chief rabbi of Jerusalem), discussed the issue at
length. In his letters, Rav Kook admits that at that time they both opposed the hetter.

41
Seeing first-hand the precarious state of agricultural settlements was a critical factor in changing
Rav Kook’s mind. He understood that observing the sabbatical year fully could endanger lives and
would likely bring about the collapse of the new settlements.
A second concern was that the entire enterprise of the return to the Land of Israel could fail over
this issue. At that time, the nascent economy of the Yishuv in Eretz Yisrael was based on the
commercial sale of agricultural produce.

A third concern — and perhaps the most important for Rav Kook — was his fear that a strict ruling
would plainly demonstrate that Judaism is incompatible with the modern world and the building
of a Jewish state:

The Halachic Underpinnings of the Hetter

In his letters, Rav Kook also discussed the legal reasoning behind the hetter mechirah. The sale is
actually based on a number of independent, mitigating factors, each one lessening the severity of
working the land during the sabbatical year.
The most important factor in taking a lenient stance is the ruling of most Halachic authorities
that nowadays the sabbatical year no longer retains the status of Biblical law. Since it is
Rabbinically-ordained, we may apply various leniencies (according to the principle of sfeika
d'rabbanan lekula).

42
 The hetter only permits those types of agricultural labor that are not Biblically prohibited, even
when the sabbatical year itself is Biblically ordained. Thus, planting, pruning, harvesting, fruit-
picking, and perhaps plowing must still be performed by a non-Jew hired to work the field. This
clause ensures that no Torah prohibitions are violated, even according to the minority opinion that
even nowadays the sabbatical year is Biblically ordained.

The Maharit1 in a responsum permitted renting out land to a non-Jew for a time period that
includes the seventh year. He ruled that the obligation to observe the sabbatical year is on the
farmer working the land, and not on the land itself. Even those who disagreed with this ruling,
nonetheless, agree that an actual sale of the land to a non-Jew will permit it to be farmed, since the
land is no longer the property of a Jewish farmer.

An additional reason to be lenient is that our current situation is one of “undue hardship” ("sha’at
hadechak"). Given the precarious state of the agricultural settlements, not working the land would
be truly life-threatening. In such cases, one may rely on a single opinion — that of the Rezah2 —
who held that nowadays, without the Jubilee year, the sabbatical year is not even rabbinically
ordained, but is only a pious custom.

Additionally, we may consider the question regarding the correct count of the years. The Kaftor
Vaferach3 testified that some farmers would observe the seventh year for one year, while others
observed it during another. Even though the rabbis agreed to observe just one sabbatical year (and
Maimonides’ count was chosen), this is only a convention; the doubt still remains as to what is
truly the sabbatical year.

According to the land-deeds in Palestine under the Ottoman Empire, all land in fact belongs to
the regime, not the Jewish farmer. The farmer is only a “sharecropper of the king,” allowed to keep
90% of his produce by law (and 60-70% in practice).

Rav Kook also intimated that he had additional arguments to be lenient, but intentionally did not
publicize them. He feared that, once institutionalized, the hetter would become too entrenched.
The ultimate goal was not to circumvent the laws of the sabbatical year, but to allow the settlements
to grow and prosper until they would be able to completely observe the sabbatical year in all of its
details.

Eye to the Future

43
Many of the rabbis who opposed the hetter mechirah wrote that not observing the sabbatical year
would in fact jeopardize the future of Jewish settlement in the Land of Israel, since the punishment
for transgressing its laws is exile (see Avot 5:9). While Rav Kook also looked forward to the day
when the seventh year would be fully observed, he viewed the hetter as a stepping-stone that would
allow the community to achieve that goal.

One expression of this graduated approach is the distinction the hetter made between those
agricultural activities that are prohibited Biblically and those prohibited rabbinically. “We should
be like one who saves his possessions from the fire,” Rav Kook explained. “Whatever is more
precious and holier [i.e., Biblically-prohibited labor] must be rescued first.”
This distinction also provides a solution to the danger of punishment by exile for not observing the
sabbatical year. Such a severe penalty could only apply to transgressing Biblically ordained
prohibitions. As the author of Sha’agat Aryeh4 wrote regarding the blessings recited before
studying Torah: “It is self-evident, that if this blessing was only of rabbinic origin, it would not
warrant such a terrible punishment as forfeiting the Land” (Siman 24).

Not Relying on the Hetter

What about those who did not wish to rely on the hetter mechirah? Here, Rav Kook distinguished
between farmers and consumers.
Rav Kook was very supportive of farmers who did not wish to rely on the hetter. When he heard
that the JCA was using the hetter to force farmers to work on the sabbatical year, he became
acutely distressed, and threatened the JCA that the hetter would become invalid under such
circumstances. Rav Kook also spoke of setting up a special fund to support these farmers.
On the other hand, Rav Kook spoke harshly against consumers who chose to be stringent in the
sabbatical year by buying produce only from non-Jewish farmers. One cannot take
on chumrot (stringencies) at the expense of others.

44
1
Rabbi Jacob Toledano (1697-1771) of Meknes, Morocco.
2
Rabbi Zerachiah HaLevi Gerondi, 1125-1186.
3
Rabbi Eshtori HaParchi, 1282-1357.
4
Rabbi Aryeh Leib Gunzberg, 1695-1785.

Heter Mechira: The Ideal Solution to Shmita Today

Rabbi Eliezer Melamed writes:11

In the opinion of many Rishonim, shmita at this time is nothing but a minhag chassidut
(custom of extreme piety), and there is even disagreement regarding the counting of the
years, and when shmita falls out * In view of this, even if we are strict and take into
consideration the minority opinion that shmita is practiced at this time, we may rely on the
opinion of Beit Yosef that selling land to a non-Jew expropriates the laws of shmita from the

11
https://en.yhb.org.il/revivim963/

45
land * It is preferable to buy heter mechira fruits over those grown by non-Jewish farmers,
because by doing so we fulfill the mitzvah of yishuv ha’aretz (settling the Land of Israel) by
strengthening the farmers who cultivate its lands

Q: Is the heter mechira ideal, or should the position of Haredi rabbis who prefer to buy produce
grown by non-Jews be considered?

A: In our current situation, the heter mechira (the sale of Israeli farmland to a non-Jew to avoid
the prohibition of working the land in Israel during the Sabbatical [shmita] year) is the
most mehudar (ideal) of all the various options. True, Maran Rabbi Kook ztz” l, out of his
tremendous piety and desire for the Redemption and observance of all the mitzvot dependent on
the Land of Israel, sighed a lot about the heter mechira, and consequently also refrained from
clarifying all the halachic foundations of the heter, but in truth, anyone who studies the issue
understands that the heter is le-chatchila (a level of performance that satisfies an obligation in an
ideal manner). To clarify the heter, I will begin with a brief explanation of the mitzvah
of Shivi’it (shmita).

The Mitzvah of Shivi’it

It is a positive mitzvah to refrain from cultivating the Land of Israel in the Sabbatical year, which
includes the prohibition of sowing, planting, and pruning. It is also forbidden to do any permanent
type of work in the field such as plowing. In addition, it is a mitzvah not to harvest fruit growing
in the seventh year, i.e., it is a mitzvah for the owners of the fields to let any person or animal eat
from the fruit. Therefore, it is forbidden to harvest or reap the fruits in the way that the owners of
the fields normally reap for trade. Rather, every person, including the owner of the field, may pick
from the fruits grown for the needs of his home, and no more.

In order to survive in the seventh year, Israel had to conserve grain, wine and oil from the previous
six years, to suffice for the seventh year. In doing so, they learned to save, and by means of this,
were able to invest in the development of the fields and factories to increase productivity and could
even survive in years of drought. Thus, the blessing written in the Torah for those who keep the
seventh year was fulfilled in a natural way.

46
The Majority of Poskim Say Shmita in Our Time is Rabbinical

According to the majority of poskim, Rishonim and Achronim, in our time, the mitzvah
of shmita time is from Divrei Chachamim (rabbinical ordinance), because from the Torah, only
when all of Israel lives in their land according to their tribes, each tribe in its inheritance, must we
observe the commandment of the Jubilee (Yovel) and shmita. Thus, from the time that the tribes
of Reuben and Gad and half of Menasheh were exiled from their inheritance by Tiglath-Pileser
king of Assyria, the mitzvah from the Torah is null and void, as the Torah says:

“You shall sanctify the fiftieth year, declaring emancipation for the land and all who live on it”
(Leviticus 25:10) – specifically, only when all its inhabitants reside according to their proper
arrangement, and are not intermingled. However, if they do not live in their proper arrangement,
even if all of Israel are in the land, but the tribes are intermingled, the obligation of shmita is void
(Arakhin 32b). The halakha is that the law of shmitah is dependent on the law of Yovel, and when
the commandment of Yovel is not in effect from the Torah, the mitzvah of shmita is also annulled
from the Torah (Gittin 36a; Peninei Halakha: Shivi’it 5: 3-4, footnote 3).

The logic of the mitzvah is understandable: only when all of Israel has land in the country and
everyone keeps shmita together, are they able to face the great challenge of shmita and Yovel.
However, when only a portion of Israel has land, they cannot bear the burden of shmita alone.
And even if economically they were able to cease from working, it would be difficult for them to
overcome their temptations if the obligation is not imposed on everyone equally. Not only that,
but each tribe must also live on its own inheritance, this is because members of the same tribe are
more capable of helping each other meet the great challenge of shmita, and even to ensure the
enforcement of Yovel, the year in which lands return to their owners, because whoever refuses to
return land he bought, harms one of the members of his own tribe. In addition, when all of Israel
are not living in the land, the uninhabited areas are likely to be occupied with non-Jews who work
in their fields for seven years, thus creating competition for keepers of shmita, who would find
difficult to withstand (Peninei Halakha: Shivi’it: 1:9).

Even what the Torah says that God will give his blessing, takes place while all of Israel are in their
land, and the obligation of shmita is from the Torah (Sefer Me’irat Enayim, Chosen Mishpat 67:
2; Pe’ah Ha’Shulchan 29:3). As we have learned, this is because the blessing does not come by

47
way of a miracle, rather naturally, and consequently, when realistic conditions do not allow for
blessing, the blessing vanishes (ibid. 7: 9).

Those who are of the Opinion there is No Obligation Today to Keep Shmita

In the opinion of some of the Gedolei Ha’Gaonim and Rishonim, there is no obligation to
keep shmita at this time, and only because of Minhag Chassidut (a custom deriving from
extreme piety) has it been practiced by some. In other words, at the time of the Second Temple,
the obligation of shmita was from Divrei Chachamim, for our Sages determined that as long as
the Beit Din Ha’Gadol (Sanhedrin) sanctifies months, adds a leap-month, and
counts shmitas and Yovels, shmita must be kept. However, from the time the Sanhedrin which
sanctified months, added leap months, and counted shmitas and Yovels was abolished, nearly
three hundred years after the Destruction, in the days of Hillel II, in the year 4119 (359 C.E), the
mitzvah of shmita was also null and void.

This is because the law of shmita is bound to the law of Yovel, and so when Yovel was abolished,
so was shmita, and only by virtue of Minhag Chassidut is shmita kept, but it is not obligatory.
This is the opinion of ReZaH (Terumot 45:4), Raavad, Ohr Zeruah in the name of Rashbam,
Nimukei Yosef, and also Meiri, who wrote: “There are several who agree with us from
the Geonim and rabbis” (Magen Avot, 15). Rashbash wrote: “Many of the Gedolim believe it is
not practiced even according to Rabbinical ordinance” (Section 258) and wrote that this is the
opinion of the author of Baal Halachot (from the time of the Geonim), Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi of
Alberceloni and Rabbeinu Yehuda Ben Yakar. Indeed, there were a few Achronim who believed
that shmita is from the Torah (Netziv in Mashiv Davar 2:56; and this is how Beit HaLevi is
inclined, 3:1). However, their words were rejected by the vast majority of the poskim (Peninei
Halakha, ibid, 5:5).

The Uncertainty of Counting the Years

In addition, there is a great controversy in the counting of the years, which depends on several
questions: what year the destruction of the Second Temple was; if after every forty-nine years,
another year is counted for the Yovel year, and then seven years are counted, or is the counting of
the shmita years consecutive.

48
In practice, we follow the opinion of the majority of the Rishonim, according to which the year
of shmita is 5782 (Rabbeinu Tam, Ri ha-Zaken, Ramban, Ran, Teruma, Beit Yosef, and R’ma
Choshen Mishpat 67:1; Rambam). According to others, the year of shmita should have been in
5781 (Rashi, Tur), while according to the counting of others, it was 5779 (Raavad, and so is the
principled opinion of Rambam, though in practice, he accepted the opinion of the majority of
the Geonim).

Some poskim are of the opinion that based on the safek (doubt) of the counting of the years alone,
it would be possible to permit agricultural work in the shmita year in a sha’at dachak (at a time
of distress). Moreover, by the very fact that there was a controversy over when shmita actually
was, and this controversy lasted for nearly a thousand years – from the Destruction, until the end
of the days of the Rishonim – ReZaH proved that shmita at this time is a minhag (custom), and
therefore they were not meticulous in observing it (see, Peninei Halakha, ibid 5: 7, footnote 6; 7:
2).

Shmitat Kesafim (Cancellation of Debts)

It is important to know that in the matter of shmitat kesafim, this law applies abroad, just as in
Israel. Consequently, if there is an obligation from Divrei Chachamim to fulfill shmita after the
Destruction and the annulment of the Sanhedrin that sanctified years, then all the debts of someone
who did not write a prozbul (a document abrogating an outstanding debt), expire at the end of
the shmita year. In practice, many communities were not customary to write a prozbul, and the
question arose as to whether the debts had expired. In practice, the rabbis instructed the debts
needed to be paid, relying on the opinion of the poskim that the shmita year did not apply at the
time, or because the public agreed that debts should not be expropriated.

And in the Responsa Katav Sofer (H.M. 9), he clarified that the obligation of shmitat
kesafim is d’Rabanan (rabbinical ordinance), and some say it is not a chova (Torah obligation),
whereas on the other hand, the return of debts is a mitzvah from the Torah; consequently, the
mitzvah of returning debts outweighs the doubt of the obligation of shmita.

And in fact, Rabbi Mordechai Eliasberg ztz” l was of the opinion that in order to make it easier
for farmers to observe in the name of Clal Yisrael the mitzvah of Yishuv Ha’Aretz (settling the

49
Land of Israel) without restriction, all work on the land in the shmita year should be permitted,
without any need for a heter mechira.

The Heter Mechira

Although in principle, on the basis of several Rishonim there is no obligation to keep shmita in
the year according to our account, or because until the restoration of the Sanhedrin that sanctifies
months and years there is no obligation to keep shmita, or because they disagree about the
counting of the years, despite this, the rabbis, led by Rabbi Shmuel Mohilever, were of the opinion
that even in a situation of distress and difficulty for Jewish settlement, ideally, it was right to take
into consideration the majority of Rishonim who believe that it is obligatory from Divrei
Chachamim to keep shmita according to our way of counting the years, and therefore, they
instructed the land to be sold to a non-Jew for the duration of the shmita year.

Although in the opinion of the Mabit, the sale of the land to a non-Jew does not expropriate the
obligation of shmita from the land, and therefore even after the sale, it is forbidden to work the
land. However, in the opinion of most of the poskim, including Rabbi Yosef Karo, as long as the
non-Jew is legally the owner of the land, the obligation of shmita ceases to apply to it. And since,
at most, the obligation of shmita is from Divrei Chachamim, the halakha goes according to the
opinion of the lenient poskim, in addition to their being the majority (Peninei Halakha: Shivi’it 5:
11-12, 7:4).

Summary of the Halakha

Admittedly, the permit is given in times of distress, yet we are still in times of distress, both on the
part of farmers who believe that without a heter to work in the shmita year they would prefer to
change jobs, and also on the part of the state, for if it has to pay for the farmers cessation of work,
it would cost about 10 billion shekels at the expense of yeshivas, Talmudei Torah, hospitals, roads,
and more.

After all this, it is clear that from the Torah, fruits of the heter mechira are preferable over fruits
grown by non-Jews. This is because it is a mitzvah from the Torah to prefer to buy from our Jewish
brother, as the Torah says: “Thus, when you buy or sell to your neighbor [ami’techa]” (Leviticus,

50
25:14), and from the word “ami’techa “, we learn that it is a mitzvah from the Torah to prefer our
Jewish counterpart to a non-Jew. Not only that, but even when the Jew’s goods cost a little more,
he should be preferred (Ahavat Chesed, Volume 1, 5:7). In addition, by purchasing fruits of
the heter mechira, one fulfills the mitzvah of Yishuv Ha’Aretz, which is equal in weight
to all the mitzvot, and the strengthening of Jewish farmers in Eretz Yisrael is an element of the
mitzvah of Yishuv Ha’Aretz, whereas those who prefer fruits grown by non-Jews, transgress two
positive mitzvot from the Torah, to take into consideration nothing but the opinion of the minority
of poskim in a law that is d’Rabanan or minhag.

Incidentally, the most important part of Minister Matan Kahana’s ‘Kashrut Plan’ is that it enables
three certified rabbis to establish a kosher organization. Thus, for example, a hechsher of the Bnei
Akiva yeshivas, or the Zionist yeshivas can be authorized, according to which products that contain
fruits of the heter mechira are Mehadrin (the most stringent level of kosher supervision),
while hechshers of those who boycott the heter mechira are kosher bedi’avad (less than ideal).
Today, however, it is impossible to obtain a Mehadrin hechsher that gives preference to the heter
mechira, over fruit grown by non-Jews.12

Heter Mechira13

12
This article appears in the ‘Besheva’ newspaper and was translated from Hebrew.

13
http://halachayomit.co.il/en/Default.aspx?HalachaID=3737

51
In the previous Halacha we have discussed the laws of the sanctity of Shevi’it which rests upon
fruits grown during Shevi’it and vegetables picked during this year. As a result of this sanctity, one
may not cause loss or ruin to these fruits; likewise, one may not sell fruits of Shevi’it besides for
in the regulated manner we shall discuss further. Similarly, different works associated with
cultivating the land and improving the produce of the Shemitta year are forbidden as well.
Additionally, we have also explained the sanctity of Shevi’it does not apply to produce grown in a
non-Jew’s land in Israel and applies only to fruits grown on a Jew’s land.

Since nowadays most lands and fields in Israel are owned by Jews and not marketing these fruits
like during other years would result in a hefty financial loss, there are Shevi’it organizations that
compensate these Jewish farmers for the losses they suffer during Shevi’it of which a large portion
of this compensation comes from the generous donations of kind Jews from all over the world.
Nevertheless, this does not solve all of the Shevi’it-related problems, for there are still farmers who
refuse to allow their lands to remain fallow during Shevi’it in addition to the fact that the Israeli
Department of Agriculture does not allow the importation of fruits from other countries to
substitute these fruits.

As a result of these and several other reasons, it has become the practice of the Chief Rabbinate of
Israel already from the times of Hagaon Harav Avraham Yitzchak Ha’Kohen Kook zt” l to sell the
lands of interested Jewish farmers to non-Jews, similar to the idea of selling Chametz to a non-Jew
on Erev Pesach, and by doing so, the sanctity of Shevi’it would not rest on the produce of Shevi’it.
(Produce of this sort is already available in Israeli markets and stores; the further we get into
the Shemitta year, the more such fruits and vegetables appear. The Kashrut certificate for such
produce will indicate “Heter Mechira.”) Some rule that in this way, a Jew may continue to work
the land during the Shemitta year like on any other year. Let us now briefly explain the progression
of this practice throughout the years.

In the year 5645 (1885), Baron Rothschild of France (through the intervention of his righteous and
philanthropic brother-in-law, Sir Moses Montefiore, and Hagaon Harav Shmuel Mohliver, head of

52
the Bialystok rabbinical court) donated a generous amount of money in order to support the needy
residents of the Land of Israel and to help the purchase agricultural plots of land in the Ekron
settlement. These lands were originally meant for vineyards to grow wine. The Israeli farmers
would work for the baron, and he would pay their monthly wages. The baron appointed French
managers who were not Torah observant to oversee this project and they would update the baron
on the progress. For whatever reasons, harsh arguments erupted between the farmers and the
French overseers, and the French managers ceased updating the baron regarding the progress of
the vineyard operation (success of which was not to be taken for granted in those days and actually
failed miserably in the beginning). When the baron visited Israel, he was amazed to see the
remarkable success of the growing vineyard and the wine-production. He was so taken aback that
he decided to rename the settlement “Mazkeret Batya” in honor of his mother.

In the year 5648 (1888), the year before Shemitta of 5649, the farmers informed the French project
managers that they did not plan to work next year in observance of Shemitta. This clearly meant
that the baron’s investment would be lost, for if the Jewish farmers would not tend to the fields for
an entire year, this would certainly mean that the vineyards would incur heavy damages. It would
also be quite possible that the baron would stop funding the settlement which could bring about a
dangerous situation for the Jews living there.

When Baron Rothschild heard about this new turn of events, he consulted with Hagaon Harav
Naftali Hertz, the newly appointed rabbi of Jaffa and the surrounding settlements, in order to seek
the guidance of the sages of Jerusalem and ascertain whether or not there was any halachic leniency
permitting work to continue on his lands during Shevi’it. Rabbi Naftali Hertz, who was also
appointed to oversee religious services in several other newly established settlements including
Rishon Le’Zion (5642/1882), Nes Ziona, Gedera, and Yesod Ha’Ma’ala (5644/1884), turned to
Hagaon Harav Shmuel Salant, Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem; because the latter did not wish to enter a
disagreement with Hagaon Harav Yehoshua Leib Diskin, he requested that the Rishon Le’Zion at
the time, Hagaon Harav Refael Meir Panizel, enter the picture and rule as he saw fit. The Rishon
Le’Zion in turn sent this question to his great brother-in-law, Hagaon Harav Yaakov Shaul

53
Elyashar (who served as the Rishon Le’Zion immediately following him) to look into. Hagaon
Harav Elyashar wrote a lengthy response on this issue (printed in his Responsa Simcha La’Ish)
where he permitted selling the lands to a non-Jew (similar to the way we sell Chametz to a non-
Jew on Erev Pesach) which would absolve the land of its sanctity and all work could then continue
as usual. Harav Elyashar based his ruling on the ruling of the author of the Sefer Tzeror Ha’Mor,
Hagaon Harav Mordechai Rubian, a Sephardic luminary who lived approximately three hundred
years ago, who had previously ruled leniently on this issue.

The Rishon Le’Zion, Hagaon Harav Panizel, signed on to the lenient ruling of Hagaon Harav
Elyashar. Nevertheless, there were still many Jewish farmers from the Ekron settlement (who were
predominantly Ashkenazi) who refused to accept the ruling of the great Sephardic luminaries and
requested the involvement of some Ashkenazi sages including Hagaon Harav Yehoshua of Kutna
(one of Poland’s greatest Poskim at the time), Hagaon Harav Shmuel Mohliver (the rabbi who
assisted in establishing the settlement by influencing Baron Rothschild), and Hagaon Harav
Shmuel Zanvil Klapfish (noted Posek in Warsaw). Each of these great Torah giants wrote halachic
responses on this topic and each one ruled that it would be permissible to sell the lands of the
Ekron settlement to a non-Jew in order absolve them of their Shevi’it sanctity while emphasizing
that this ruling applied only to pressing circumstances such as this one. Many great Ashkenazi
Poskim agreed to this ruling including the greatest Ashkenazi Posek of the generation, Hagaon
Harav Yitzchak Elchanan Spektor, the Rav of Kovna.

On the other hand, many other Torah giants including Hagaon Harav Yehoshua Leib Diskin (Rav
of the Eidah Ha’Charedit of Jerusalem), Hagaon Harav Yosef Dov Soloveichik (Rav of Brisk),
Hagaon Harav Naftali Zvi Yehuda Berlin (Rosh Yeshiva of Volozhin), Hagaon Harav David
Friedman of Karlin, and others who opposed the “Heter Mechira” (ruling permitting the sale of
the land) for several reasons (because of the complexity of the details of Heter Mechira which
relate to many very important halachic issues which we cannot discuss on this forum). This
halachic argument reappears on the scene the year before every Shemitta year until today while

54
much halachic literature, some pro and some against Heter Mechira, has been authored on this
topic.

In the past several generations, the Chief Rabbi of Israel, Hagaon Harav Avraham Yitzchak
Ha’Kohen Kook zt”l, instituted that that the Chief Rabbinate, which is responsible for all matters
of Kashrut in Israel, receive a power of attorney from farmers interested in selling their lands to a
non-Jew (specifically an Arab in order to avoid the prohibition of selling land in Israel to an
idolatrous non-Jew) for one year’s time and by doing so, removing the land’s Shevi’it sanctity.
Nevertheless, the great Ridbaz of Tzefat wrote a lengthy response opposing the Heter Mechira and
shortly later, the great Chazon Ish joined the opposing camp as well. On the other hand, Hagaon
Harav Tzvi Pesach Frank wrote that even Hagaon Harav Yehoshua Leib Diskin changed his
opinion about Heter Mechira in the year 5695 (1935) and relied upon it when he realized that many
non-religious farmers continued working the land as usual during the Shemitta year and as such, a
large amount of Shevi’it produce entered the market and was bought and sold which brought about
many other problems. He therefore analyzed the matter once again and ruled in accordance with
the lenient view (although he limited his ruling to one year only).

So as not to tire our readers, let us quote the words of the Gaon of Kutna (one of the greatest
Ashkenazi luminaries of his generation, as we have mentioned above) in a response recorded in
his Responsa Yeshuot Malko, Chapter 53 regarding the issue of Heter Mechira:
“Regarding Shemitta, I am baffled, for selling the lands is clearly permissible, especially since the
Sephardic luminaries (reference to Hagaon Harav Elyashar), who fingernails are wider than the
stomachs of the Ashkenazi luminaries, permit non-Jews to work the land during Shevi’it. How can
we consider their Torah meaningless?” He adds other such ideas regarding those opposed to Heter
Mechira.

Hagaon Harav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt” l wrote an entire book on the subject of Heter
Mechira and even instructed the Chief Rabbis of Israel, Harav Eliyahu Bakshi-Doron and Harav
Yisrael Meir Lau, to continue carrying out the sale of Heter Mechira as was the practice in

55
previous years so that the farmers do not continue to work their lands in a forbidden manner,
among other reasons. He added that the Sephardic Poskim did not limit their approval of Heter
Mechira to pressing circumstances only and therefore, there is certainly room for leniency in our
times. Certainly, when we are finally redeemed and the entire Jewish nation will return to their
land and the Mitzvah of Shemitta will once again be a Torah obligation, we will then merit the
Torah’s blessing of “I shall command my blessing on the sixth year” and we will no longer
require Heter Mechira. However, nowadays, the Heter Mechira should indeed be implemented.
This was indeed the opinion of the majority of the greatest luminaries and halachic leaders of the
past several generations.

On the other hand, Hagaon Harav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv zt” l felt differently, and his opinion
was that the Heter Mechira should be completely banned nowadays. Nevertheless, we follow the
majority opinion among the Poskim who ruled that the Heter Mechira should be implemented
even nowadays. This is especially true for us, Sephardic Jewry, for as we have pointed out above,
the Sephardic Poskim did not limit their support of Heter Mechira for pressing circumstances only.

Maran Rabbeinu Ovadia Yosef zt”l, with his stunning halachic genius and expertise, compiled an
impressive treatise on the issue of Heter Mechira (printed approximately fifty years ago in the
monthly Halacha digest Kol Sinai and later in his Responsa Yabia Omer, Volume 10, Yoreh De’ah,
Chapters 37-44) where he leaves no stone unturned on his coverage of the subject matter and he
concludes that the Heter Mechira should be carried out nowadays and anyone wishing to
purchase Heter Mechira produce certainly has on whom to rely, for this Heter is based on solid
halachic foundations, as we have discussed. He adds though that one who acts stringently, and
purchases produce that is not a product of Heter Mechira is especially praiseworthy. However, the
Chief Rabbis must execute the Heter Mechira for those who are interested, as we have explained.

56
 Mahne Yehuda Shuk in Jerusalem

RONNIE STEKEL writes:14

This year, 5775, is a shmita (sabbatical) year and many Jews believe that the Torah requirement
that the land rest every seventh year applies in our time. So, they do not plow, plant, prune or
harvest their crops this year. Customers therefore do not buy any agricultural produce grown in
Israel during the year, relying on agricultural produce that has been imported. This is not a practice
that I would want to emulate.
However, some rabbis believe that shmita today is not a biblical requirement but a rabbinic one,
and have permitted one leniency, namely that one may perform otherwise prohibited activities if
the purpose is to prevent financial loss. However, the landowner may not treat what grows as his
own, but rather the crops should be left available for people to help themselves. They may only
take as much as they can eat, as may the landowner.
Some people will eat fruit and vegetables harvested and distributed by Otzar Beis Din.

This is based on the rule that the Bet Din (rabbinical court) or its agents may harvest and distribute
produce growing in a field during a shmita year. The produce may be distributed free of charge
with a payment required to cover labor costs.

14
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/why-i-buy-heter-mechira-391931

57
Still others, who also believe that shmita today is a rabbinic requirement, rely on Heter Mechira,
and I intend to focus on this. Under Heter Mechira Israel’s agricultural fields are sold to a non-Jew
for two years. The halachic basis is that when land is owned by non- Jews some work that is
otherwise forbidden is allowed.
There is a great debate on the issue of Heter Mechira. I am not qualified to reach a halachic decision
but must rely on rulings of those authorities that are. I need to be satisfied that my practice has
sound halachic support.
Rabbi Yosef Zvi Rimon, in his book Shemita – Halacha Mimekorah, sets out a summary of the
Heter Mechira debate on pages 408-410.

Whatever view one takes, it is clear that there are senior rabbinic leaders that support it. Rabbi
Rimon raises the question as to whether Heter Mechira involves deception.

He writes: “One of the most discomforting aspects of the Heter Mechira is that it reminds us of a
loophole that allows the criminal to walk free. The truth, however, is that the heter is far from a
legal trick. In a normal legal system, as soon as a loophole is discovered, the law is emended in
order to ‘seal’ the hole that went unnoticed when the law was first legislated. All human legal
codes include many amendments that are meant to seal such loopholes.

In civil law, had the legislature foreseen that a certain loophole would be exploited, it would have
sealed the hole from the outset, rather than leave breach that it invites the criminal to commit his
offense. God, however, is prescient and all-knowing. If a breach is found in the Torah, it cannot
be that God was not aware of it from the very beginning. A loophole in the Torah must have been
intentionally included so that it might be used at the appropriate time.”

There is a story told of Rabbi Israel Salanter, who was once invited to eat a meal with an affluent
family. His host noticed that he used the minimum amount of water possible to wash his hands
before the meal. The host mentioned that the more water used, the greater the mitzvah. Rabbi
Salanter replied that he had seen how his host’s servant girl was struggling to bring up water from
the well and that he couldn’t increase his mitzvahs at someone else’s cost.

There is a passage in Responsa Yeshu’ot Malko (The Gaon of Kutna, Yoreh De’ah, No. 55) that
states: “I have said that it is obviously better to permit selling [the land] to a gentile, even though
it is forbidden to give away or sell land in Eretz Yisrael. Inasmuch as this is done for the benefit
of [Jewish] settlement [in Eretz Yisrael]; there is no prohibition of lo techonem! “Were it not for
Heter Mechira Jewish agriculture would collapse, and in its place gentile agriculture would
flourish” (Rabbi Rimon p. 400).

Chief rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, first chief rabbi in Palestine, formally expressed his support to
the use of Heter Mechira in Palestine in circumstances where the economy of the Jewish
community in Palestine was based on agricultural produce.

Today we live in a different world. The Israeli economy is not based on agricultural produce and
as a result there are people who had previously supported the use of Heter Mechira but do not do
so now. However, there are many farms and kibbutzim whose income is exclusively dependent on
agriculture.

58
They have consulted responsible rabbinic leadership and have been authorized to work the land in
accordance with halachic requirements of Heter Mechira. Without this authority the Jewish
families who rely on this decision would have been reduced to poverty.

One of the most emotive prayers that is exclusive to the 10 Days of Repentance between Rosh
Hashanah and Yom Kippur is “Unetaneh Tokef.” It climaxes with the statement, “ut’shuva ut’filla
utzedaka ma’avirin es roa hagezeira,” or “with repentance and with prayer and with charity we can
avert the evil decree.” The giving of charity is critical in the repentance process.

Rambam states that highest form of charity is to give someone an income. Buying Heter Mechira
agricultural produce today does exactly that.

I wish that the Otzar Beis Din would incorporate all agricultural produce grown in this country so
that we would all participate in Kedushat Shevi’it. However, this is not yet the case. Where I, and
others who think as I do, to abandon Heter Mechira, our decision would send Jewish farmers into
impoverishment. Families could become destitute. I do not want this on my conscience; I do not
want to increase my mitzvahs at someone else’s cost. I will continue to buy Heter Mechira.

Shemittah year 5768

59
 HETER MECHIRAH OR IMPORTED VEGETABLES
WHICH SHOULD ONE CHOOSE?

Rabbi Dr. Chaim Simons writes:15

Introduction

A few weeks before Shavuot 5767, Eliezer Barat, the Managing Director of “Alei Katif” wrote:
“Otzar Ha’aretz suggests possible solutions for the supply of fruit and vegetables which are
Mehadrin for Shemittah, without having to use non-Jewish produce and without utilising the Heter
Mechirah.” (1) About a month and a half later, “Otzar Ha’aretz” modified this position and stated
that when non Heter Mechirah vegetables from Jewish sources are finished, “Otzar Ha’aretz” will
place “two alternatives before the buyers: imported produce from the Diaspora or Heter Mechirah.
The Bet Din of Otzar Ha’aretz, (which is composed of four well-known Rabbis (2)), will not decide
on this question but will leave it to the decision of the consumer.” (3) In answer to a question,
Rabbi Yehudah Amichai of “Otzar Ha’aretz” answered that “vegetables which are Heter Mechirah
will be clearly and prominently labeled.” (4)

In this paper, I, a consumer of “Otzar Ha’aretz” produce will discuss in depth the choice between
Heter Mechirah produce and imported produce. The discussion will include the question of
whether the Heter Mechirah has, according to the consensus of Rabbinic opinion, any Halachic
validity today and, indeed whether it ever had such validity in the past. (It is not the purpose of
this paper to enter into the lengthy and complex Halachic arguments for and against the Heter
Mechirah.) Furthermore, even according to those who give Heter Mechirah Halachic validity, does
it have ideological acceptability? A further question is: can one take seriously the sale of Eretz
Yisrael to a non-Jew? According to those who hold that the Heter Mechirah is not Halachically
acceptable, what is the status of Heter Mechirah agricultural produce – is it kosher or not, and is
there a difference between fruit on the one hand and vegetables on the other? After delving into
all these questions, I will attempt to answer the question as to whether to use Heter Mechirah or
imported produce.

Early history of Heter Mechirah

In a paper written by Rabbi Kalman Kahana, he summarized the observance of Shemittah

throughout the generations until the period of the “First Aliyah.” He wrote, “For thousands of years
Jews of Eretz Yisrael kept the Mitzvah of Shemittah with trust in the kindness of the Almighty….
This was even in periods when there were no non-Jewish owned fields in Eretz Yisrael, and all the

15
http://chaimsimons.net/shemittaheng.html

60
food came from Jewish owned fields and also in periods when it was not easy to import such
produce.” (5)

In the 1880s when, what is popularly known today as the “First Aliyah” began, many of the new
Jewish immigrants worked in the production and export of wine and citrus fruits. As the Shemittah
year 5649 (1888-89) approached, the Rabbis of Jerusalem, Rabbi Yehoshua Yehudah Leib
(Maharil) Diskin and Rabbi Shmuel Salant, forbade work on the land during the Shemittah. (6)
The men of the “First Aliyah” then began a propaganda campaign in which “they falsely stated in
a loud voice that observance of the Shemittah would be life threatening, and as a result of this there
were some Rabbinical authorities in the Diaspora, who living far away [from Eretz Yisrael] gave
a lenient decision on this matter” (7)

In fact, the colonists had a different reason for the non-observance of Shemittah – they were
concerned about creating a precedent. Moshe Leib Lielienblum, one of the secular Zionist leaders
of the time wrote, “If the colonists stop work for this first Shemittah, it will create a precedent in
accordance with those who are strict … and then there will be no future possibility of permitting
work during Shemittah … therefore we must from the outset not accept the opinion of those who
are strict and not permit any cessation of work.” (8)

Some Rabbis in Eastern Europe were contacted and three of them (9) gave a Heter, for that
Shemittah alone, subject to the approval of Rabbi Yitzchak Elchanan Spektor of Kovno, to sell the
land to a non-Jew. Rabbi Spektor gave his agreement in a very guarded manner and stressed that
this was valid solely for that Shemittah. (10) However, on this approval, some Rabbis of that
generation wrote that the colonists had used “trickery and deceit on the Rabbi [Spektor].” (11) and
that “he was not conversant with the situation.” (12)

The Sepharadi authorities in Eretz Yisrael represented by Hacham Yaacov Shaul Elyasher gave
their approval. (13) However, the Ashkenazi Jerusalem Rabbinate, headed by Rabbi Diskin and
Rabbi Salant strongly disagreed and issued a proclamation that “there is no Heter whatsoever to
plough, to sow, to reap and to plant whether by themselves [the colonists] or by a non-Jew.” (14)
Later a further similar proclamation was issued in Jerusalem by about twenty Rabbis. (15) One of
these Rabbis, Rabbi Tuvia Rosenthal, wrote a book in which he clarified the laws of Shemittah. In
the introduction to this book he wrote, “It is obvious that had they [the colonists] not found
someone to give the Heter [Mechirah], they would have observed the Shemittah in accordance
with the Halachah.” (16)

At that period, there were also a number of renowned Rabbis in Europe who came out strongly
against this Heter. These included Rabbi Yoseph Dov Soloveichik (the Bet Halevi), Rabbi Naftali
Tzvi Yehudah Berlin (the Netziv), Rabbi Shimshon Refoel Hirsch (a leading Rabbi in Germany),
Rabbi David Friedman of Karlin (a leading Rabbi in Lithuania), Rabbi Eliezer Gordon (Rosh
Yeshivah of Telz), the Admor of Radzin (who is famous for his work on Techelet), Rabbi Yoseph
Stern (Av Bet Din of Shavli) and Rabbi Yechiel Michel Epstein (the Aruch Hashulchan). (17) The
last named described this Heter as an “insult to our Holy Torah and our Holy Land.” (18) In
contrast Rabbi Yoseph Engel (19) and Rabbi Avraham Bornstein of Sochochov (20) came out in
favour.

61
There were some colonists who observed the Shemittah. However, it was not easy for them since
great pressure was put on them from various sources. One of these sources was the overseers of
Baron Edmond Rothschild who was helping to financially support the new settlers. (21) A further
source of compulsion was the leaders of “Hovevei Zion” who stopped giving financial support to
the Shemittah observers. On this Dr. Leon Pinsker, one of the founders and leaders of “Hovevei
Zion” wrote, “I gave an order to stop supporting the community of Gedera if they do not work
during Shemittah.” (22) There were even people “who were not ashamed to involve the [Turkish]
government in this matter and they went and informed against them [the Shemittah observers] to
the authorities saying that the Jews were not working and would thus harm the treasury.” (23) Only
a few of the colonists were able to withstand this pressure. (24)

In the year 5664 (1904), Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak Hakohen Kook came on Aliyah and soon after
was appointed Rabbi of Jaffa. Whilst he was in Russia, he had opposed this Heter – “my opinion
then inclined towards those who oppose this Heter.” (25) Approaching the Shemittah year 5670
(1909-10) a lot of pressure was put on him to give a Heter Mechirah – the pressure was so much
that he said that “if a Yeshivah in Jerusalem were to give him… [a stipend] each month he would
leave his position [as the Rabbi of Jaffa] because of the Shemittah problem and go and learn in the
Yeshivah.” (26) However, because of the critical economic situation of the colonists, he finally
gave a Heter. (27) We can see from his letters that it was given with great reluctance (28) and “my
heart aches continually because of this priceless Mitzvah,” (29) He called it a “heter given in
strained circumstances” (30) and that it was only a “temporary measure”. (31) However, he also
wrote, “that anyone who wishes not to work the land at all during the Shemittah year is to be
praised.” (32) He also declared that “every Jew who is in a position to observe the Shemittah even
in strained circumstances, and in the following year will be able to work his land, and not be forced
to abandon it [his land] and depart to the Diaspora, is in duty bound to observe the Shemittah in
accordance with the law, and this would be a great merit for the whole Jewish people.” (33)

This Shemittah – 5768

In our generation for every successive Shemittah, fewer Rabbis support the Heter Mechirah. This
Shemittah, there were a number of official city Rabbis who refused the give a hechsher to those
establishments which utilized the Heter Mechirah. This refusal was made with the consent of the
Chief Rabbinate who decided “that each city Rabbi should have the sole right to decide on his
city’s policy regarding Shemittah in accordance with his own individual interpretation and opinion
on the laws of Shemittah.” (34)

Furthermore, the Chief Rabbinate Council decided “to encourage the observance of Shemittah. In
a case where it is possible to decrease the use of the Heter Mechirah, it will be done in accordance
with the circumstances…. The need for the use of the Heter by a particular farmer will be
investigated." (35) Chief Rabbi Yona Metzger went as far to announce that they planned to
discontinue the use of the Heter Mechirah after the current Shemittah. (36)

To combat the situation where the “local Rabbinate was not prepared to allow organizations to
purchase Heter Mechirah products,” (37) a group of “Religious Zionist Rabbis” in the organization
“Rabbis of Tzohar” “established their own new Kashrut organization.” (38) They brought out an
advertisement for “owners of businesses” who “have had difficulties in receiving a Kashrut

62
certificate in the Shemittah year” to apply for their “Teudat Hashgacha” (supervision certificate)
(39) and they then started “to distribute them.” (40) (For legal reasons they could not use the term
“Teudat Kashrut” and so they had to call it “Teudat Hashgacha.” (41)) A sample of their “Teudat
Hashgacha” was reproduced in the Israeli press (42) and also displayed on the Internet (43) and it
is headed “The National Supervisory Committee for Shemittah” with the names of the four Rabbis
who comprised the Presidium. (44)

However, some organizations who market agricultural produce took more decisive action and took
the Chief Rabbinate to the Supreme Court claiming, “that for many years, the policy was to
recognize the Heter Mechirat, and we are thus dealing with a change in policy for a stricter one,
which will cause immeasurable damage to agriculture.” (45) In their lengthy ruling written largely
by Judge Elyakim Rubinstein who is an observant Jew, the Court ruled that “in any instance where
the local Rabbi is not prepared to give a Kashrut certificate based on ‘Heter Mechirat’, the [Chief]
Rabbinate must use its powers… and appoint Rabbis who will do this.” (46) (Even though this
ruling was based on administrative considerations, it caused strong negative reactions from
Knesset members of the ‘Yahadut haTorah” party. (47)) Following this ruling, the Chief Rabbinate
authorized five Rabbis to grant such Kashrut certificates. (48)

Are the early rulings on Heter Mechirat relevant today?

There are today some leading Rabbis in Israel who still utilize the Heter Mechirat. It goes without
saying that even if one personally disagrees with their ruling, one must not talk disparagingly of
these Rabbis and their ruling on this question.

Those supporting the Heter Mechirat today, often adduce support (in particular) from Rabbi
Kook’s ruling. However, the question is whether Rabbi Kook’s ruling is still relevant today. As
we have seen above, nearly one hundred years ago he himself described it as a “temporary
measure.”

In a lecture he gave over forty years ago, Rabbi Shlomo Goren said that Rabbi Kook’s ruling no
longer applied, and any such sale had no validity. (49) At a later date, he published an article in
“Hatzofeh” reiterating this point. In it he wrote that “after the establishment of the State of Israel,
when most of Eretz Yisrael is in Jewish hands, there is no validity to the Heter Mechirat according
to the writings of Rabbi Kook himself, (50) or the Heter has been completely weakened and one
cannot rely on it, especially as one is speaking of the sale of all Eretz Yisrael to non-Jews in order
to nullify its sanctity.” (51)

A similar conclusion, but for economic reasons, was reached by Rabbi Moshe Ushpizin who was
Chief Rabbi of Ramat Gan and at a later date, Chairman of the Board of Rabbis of Hapoel
Hamizrachi. Over forty years ago he wrote, “Now there has been a great change in the economy
of the State of Israel. The economy is increasingly being based on industry and not on agriculture.
Industry is taking first place in the country. Even the kibbutz economy is increasingly being based
on industry…. We are also, time and time again witnessing a sad phenomenon where excess fruit
and vegetables are being thrown on the dung-heap.” He very strongly suggested that the original
protagonists, and especially Rabbi Kook, would not agree to the Heter Mechirah today. (52)

63
This same point was made during the month prior to this Shemittah, when a list of fifteen of the
leading Rabbis in Israel, (53) including both Ashkenazi and Sepharadi Rabbis, issued a
proclamation regarding this Shemittah. In it they stated, “As is well known about a hundred years
ago, at a time of great necessity and in life threatening situations, there were great Rabbis who
permitted as a temporary measure relying on the Heter Mechirah, but it is absolutely clear that
even those who then permitted it would not do so today.” (54)

In contrast to this, those who today are in favour of Heter Mechirah try to adduce support by
quoting the names of the prominent Rabbis who a century ago gave their consent, but they fail to
mention that these Rabbis said that it was only for that particular Shemittah that they gave the
Heter. Incidentally, one of the names they mention is Rabbi Yehoshua Yehudah Leib (Maharil)
Diskin. But this is inaccurate. Rabbi Diskin was strongly against the Heter Mechirah. What he
supported was the one-time suggestion by the Rabbi of Jaffa, Rabbi Naftali Herz that for that
particular Shemittah (5656 / 1895-96) one could sell the fruit trees and even this had very strict
limitations placed on it. (55)

Heter Mechirah viewed ideologically

Is it ideologically right (even according to those who hold that halachically the Heter Mechirah is
valid) to sell Eretz Yisrael to non-Jews? The Almighty gave Eretz Yisrael in its entirety only to
the Jewish people and now we want to sell it to avoid observing a Mitzvah in the Torah! Just as
the Jewish people have been Divinely given the Shabbat, the holy soil of Eretz Yisrael has likewise
been given its Shabbat.

Rabbi Ze’ev Vitman, the Chairman of the Shemittah Committee of the Chief Rabbinate, wrote that
“Heter Mechirah is based on completely nullifying the Mitzvah of Shemittah” and “thus there are
essential and basic differences between Heter Mechirah and other heterim,” such as Mechirat
Chametz [sale of Chametz], Heter Iska [method used to avoid infringing the prohibition against
taking interest] and Pruzbul [document allowing collection of debts after the end of the Shemittah
year]. (56) In a similar vein, Rabbi Moshe Levinger, who (before he re-established Jewish
settlement in Hebron) was Rabbi of Kibbutz Lavie, (a kibbutz of the “Kibbutz Hadati”), wrote an
article entitled “A proposal to limit the sale [of land] to a non-Jew in the Shemittah year.” In this
article he stated that “it is difficult for the populace to take upon themselves the instructions of the
Chief Rabbinate who obligate them to observe some of the laws of Shemittah even after the sale.
It is indeed found that these instructions are barely implemented, and thus the practice has shown
that with the sale of the land based on the Heter Mechirah, one sells the whole of the Shemittah.”
(57)

In is written about the “Netziv” “that his entire soul was filled with devotion and immeasurable
love for Eretz Yisrael, which was in the process of being resettled, so that every small brick in a
[new] building gave him spiritual joy.” In addition to opposing the Heter Mechirah on halachic
grounds, he also did so on ideological grounds as he saw this as “a blemish on the holiness and
purity of Eretz Yisrael.” (58) He wrote in connection with the Mitzvah of Shemittah, “Eretz Yisrael
is different from other countries. Its existence does not rely on natural causes as with other
countries, but on Divine providence…. [which includes] the observance of the Shemittah as
explained in the Torah.” (59)

64
Another person to realise the importance of not trying to avoid Shemittah observance was the
Director of “Neot Kedumim” [The Biblical Landscape Reserve in Israel], Nogah Hareuveni, who,
prior to the last Shemittah (5761), was asked whether he would include Neot Kedumim in the
Heter Mechirah. He replied that “Eretz Yisrael is not for sale.” All the activities at that location
during the Shemittah year were done in accordance with the Shemittah laws. (60)

How genuine is the Heter Mechirah?

This Shemittah a non-Jew, bought all the Jewish farmland in Eretz Yisrael for seventy billion
shekels with a post-dated cheque! (61) Two questions immediately come to mind: The first is:
Does this non-Jew have, or is he likely to have, cover for this sum, by the time his cheque is due?!
The second is: What if he refuses to sell this land back after the Shemittah year?!

Those who are involved in implementing the Heter Mechirah will obviously argue that these
questions do not disqualify the sale. However, there are contrary opinions. Rabbi Vitman writes
that “I heard from Rabbi Yosef Elyashiv and Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach that in their opinion
the genuineness of the sale is the biggest problem with Heter Mechirah.” (62) Even Rabbi Moshe
Levinger, who fully accepts the validity of Heter Mechirah, comments that “one cannot hide from
the fact that the populace do not understand and are unable to understand the Heter Mechirah in
its present form of selling all the Land of Israel to one Arab.” (63)

The “Minchat Yitzchak” goes further and writes that “the sale has no validity since everyone
knows that it is not a genuine sale of all the Land to a non-Jew.” (64) Likewise, Rabbi Elazar Teitz,
the Av Bet Din of Elizabeth, New Jersey, and Rabbi of the Congregation Adath Yeshurun, argues
that the sale is not a true one but an “asmachta” namely, a matter agreed to in anticipation of its
never being realised, and this renders the sale halachically invalid. (65)

There are those who argue that if Mechirat Chametz is in order, so is Heter Mechirah. However,
this argument has a serious flaw. If at the end of Pesach, the non-Jew does not want to sell back
the Chametz, he pays for it and takes it. (66) The Jew can easily then buy fresh Chametz. This is
certainly not the case with all the farmland in Eretz Yisrael!

Abolishing the Heter Mechirah

The question which is asked with increasing frequency with every successive Shemittah is whether
the Heter Mechirah should be discontinued?

By actively supporting those who want to use the Heter Mechirah, one is assisting in perpetuating
this Heter forever, whilst the intention of its proponents a hundred years ago was that it was to be
a temporary measure to be dispensed with as quickly as possible. If those supporting the Heter
Mechirah - an ever-decreasing minority opinion – were to see that the market for Heter Mechirah
products was vanishing, an alternative solution would have to be found.

Such a solution could hopefully be found if the Government of Israel had the serious intention of
working as a team together with agriculturists and Rabbis.

65
The question to be asked is how much it would cost the Israeli economy if the agricultural sector
were to cease to do work forbidden during the Shemittah year. A study of this was made by Rabbi
Professor Yehudah Levi and Rabbi Dr. Gershon Metzger at the “Jerusalem College of Technology
– Machon Lev.” They studied the agricultural situation in Israel and the profitability of agricultural
exports, and then concluded that if farmers ceased forbidden work during Shemittah, did not
engage in other work and were recompensed for all their losses, spread out over seven years, it
would increase the government budget by 50 agorot for every 1,000 shekels annually. (67) The
suggested Israeli government total budget for 2008 is just over three hundred billion shekels, (68)
thus making the annual cost of keeping Shemittah, about 150 million shekels annually.

One could mention here that the Finance Ministry announced that there was a budget surplus
during the first eleven months of 2007 of 7.7 billion shekels. (69) This could easily pay off the
entire cost of observing the Shemittah 5768 (2007-2008).

The study by “Machon Lev” goes on to propose advanced professional courses for agriculturists
during the Shemittah year in which the participants would learn about new developments in the
agricultural field. The knowledge gained from these courses would definitely improve the
efficiency of the workers in the years following the Shemittah year and thus increase their
productivity level and hence their income, and this could well offset losses incurred as a result of
observing the Shemittah year. (70)

Furthermore, new agricultural techniques could be utilized to assist with the observance of
Shemittah. (71) To accomplish this, an infrastructure would be built up with a one-time initial
outlay. This infrastructure would also assist agriculture in the non-Shemittah years. The
infrastructure would consist of extensive facilities for keeping vegetables in cold storage, building
hothouses for growing vegetables detached from the soil and developing land in the southern
Arava part of Israel (where the laws of Shemittah do not apply) for massive agriculture. In addition,
there could be large scale planting of vegetables before Rosh Hashanah of a Shemittah year. Land
could also be rented in Jordan, (as is already being done this Shemittah), and this would also give
employment to Jewish agronomists. (72) The proximity of Jordan would keep transport charges to
a minimum. Possibly land in Sinai and Egypt could also be utilized.

Where to shop?

In order to understand where one can shop during the Shemittah period, one needs to understand
the various laws concerning different types of agricultural produce. (73)

Things which grow from the ground can broadly speaking be divided into fruit and vegetables.
There is a crucial difference between fruit and vegetables regarding the laws as to what may and
may not be eaten. Because there were Jews who secretly planted things during the Shemittah year
and then claimed that they sprouted by themselves, the Rabbis made a decree that things which
had an annual planting – in practice, mainly vegetables – which began to sprout during the
Shemittah year in a Jewish owned or Jewish worked field, were classed as “sefichim” and were
forbidden to be eaten.

66
In the case of fruit there is no such prohibition since fruit trees are not planted annually. However,
there is the question of fruit trees which are illegally worked on during Shemittah (ne’evad) and
fruit which the owner has not made “ownerless” (shamur) as required. Is it permitted to eat such
fruit? This question has been in dispute for many hundreds of years – some permitting whilst others
forbid eating “shamur v’ne’evad”. Today opinions are still divided. The Eda Charedit of Jerusalem
states, quoting the opinions of Rabbi Chaim Berlin and the Ridbaz, that it is forbidden, adding that
“this has been the accepted practice of all the Batei Din of the different communities,” (74) whereas
the Chazon Ish (75) and Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (76) permit “shamur v’ne’evad”
produce, the former b’dieved [post facto].

This question – where to shop – was asked during the previous Shemittah (5761 / 2000-01) and
was answered by Rabbi Shlomo Aviner, the head of the Ateret Kohanim Yeshiva and Rabbi of
Bet El. In his answer he comes out strongly in favour of buying Heter Mechirah produce from
Jews. “If someone buys from Arabs and financially hurts Jewish agriculturalists can this be called
a stringency?! On the contrary. It is a Mitzvah to buy from Jews …. Is destroying Jewish
agriculture a stringency?! Is strengthening the hold of Arabs on our Holy Land a stringency?! On
the contrary. It is more stringent to buy from Jews relying on the Heter Mechirah.” (77)

These comments came under very strong criticism from the Av Bet Din, Rabbi Teitz, who
commented that Rabbi Aviner had left the realms of “halachic analysis” and was utilising
“arguments based on rhetoric and emotion.” (78) Rabbi Teitz also pointed out that most of the
profit from Arab agricultural produce does not go to the Arab farmer but to those who handle it
from the farm to the consumer. All these middlemen are Jewish and buying Arab produce will thus
add to the Jewish economy. (79)

Rabbi Mordechai Eliahu, a former Chief Rabbi of Israel and Rishon Lezion, who with some
hesitation, accepts the validity of the Heter Mechirah (80) lists in his book, published this
Shemittah, an “order of preference in purchasing agricultural produce during the Shemittah.”
Unlike Rabbi Aviner, he places imported products from Jordan, Egypt and Gaza (and presumably
other Diaspora countries) above Heter Mechirah produce. (81)

Of course, ideally one would prefer to buy products from Jews. However, one has to be bound by
the restraints of the Halachah and the practicalities of day to day living. We must remember that
the majority of authorities hold that today the Heter Mechirah is invalid, and this accordingly
makes “sefichim” non-kosher. The Ridbaz goes as far as to write, “and every Jew should know
that produce which is sown in the Shemittah year and fruit and vine from a vine which is pruned
in the Shemittah year are as forbidden to a Jew as is pork.” (82)

In a further article brought out by Rabbi Aviner for this Shemittah, entitled “I Choose Heter
Mechirah,” he gives a list of reasons for eating Heter Mechirah produce. In addition to those he
gave in the previous Shemittah, he states that “if someone uses the expression ‘it is forbidden’
regarding produce provided in accordance with Heter Mechirah, he is libeling the great Rabbis
who followed it,” and also “undermining Rabbinic authority.” (83) However, Rabbi Aviner is
incorrect. The Heter was not given as a permanent institution but only as a temporary one to be
reviewed every Shemittah and, as already stated above, the Rabbis who originally gave the Heter
would not give it today.

67
It is relevant to mention that with no connection to Shemittah, every year a noticeable percentage
of agricultural produce which is found in the Jewish sector is grown by Arabs. In the case of
cucumbers, the majority are grown by Arabs. Agricultural produce which is sold under the sign
“Heter Mechirah” includes this produce grown by Arabs. (84)

In order to supply those who wish to observe Shemittah with agricultural produce, many
settlements have Shemittah shops. However, unfortunately not every settlement has a Shemittah
shop and for those living in such places, a partial solution has been proposed by Rabbi Moshe
Heiman in his book “Hamitbach b’Shemittah.” Under such circumstances, he writes one can rely
on those permitting “shamur v’ne’evad” and buy from any shop in the community (even those who
have Heter Mechirah produce or no supervision at all in connection with Shemittah (85)), with the
following proviso. In the case of fruit: until no more of that species is found in the fields (“zeman
biur”). In the case of vegetables: during the first weeks of the Shemittah year, when the vegetables
reaching the shops are those where the vegetables began to sprout before Rosh Hashanah. After
this period, they will be sefichim and forbidden to be eaten, and likewise after “zeman biur.” In
the case of vegetables this period extends to about a year but for fruit it is much shorter, and during
this period one would thus have to travel outside one’s town for one’s shopping. (86)

Heter Mechirah or imported produce?

The object of this paper is to help me, a consumer decides between using Heter Mechirah produce
and imported products when all the vegetables from all the non-Shemittah sources are exhausted.

Here is my answer:

As stated right at the beginning of this paper, the Managing Director of “Alei Katif” said: “Otzar
Ha’aretz suggests possible solutions for the supply of fruit and vegetables which are Mehadrin for
the Shemittah, without having to use non-Jewish fruits and without utilising the Heter Mechirah.”
If they could adhere to this principle throughout the Shemittah year and during the subsequent
months when the laws of Shemittah produce are in practice still in force, then they would of course
have found the ideal solution. However, they already admit that in practice after the winter of the
Shemittah year, the consumer will have to decide between Heter Mechirah and imported
vegetables.

As we have already seen, the majority of Rabbinical authorities rule that today the Heter Mechirah
is invalid (and many have ruled so from its inception!). The proclamation by the fifteen leading
Rabbis (referred to above) states that “anyone who gives support to the ‘Heter Mechirah’ uproots
a Mitzvah. And our ruling is that it is forbidden to rely on this ‘Heter’ and there is no room for a
difference of opinion between the different communities and therefore every Jew is obligated to
observe the Shemittah and anyone who gives a ruling to abolish the Shemittah by the ‘Heter
Mechirah’ is guilty of causing a desecration of G-d’s name (Chillul HaShem) by giving the
appearance of making a big joke of this important and holy commandment.” (87)

It thus follows that this will make vegetables grown in the Shemittah year non-kosher and as with
other non-kosher food forbidden to be eaten.

68
Even many of those Rabbis who today accept the validity of the Heter Mechirah consider it
praiseworthy to avoid utilising it. For example, such an answer was given by Rabbi Yehudah
Amichai of the “Otzar Ha’aretz” Bet Din in answer to a question posed to the “Machon haTorah
v’ha’Aretz.” He wrote, “and anyone who is able to go through Shemittah without utilising the
Heter Mechirah is to be praised.” (88) These Rabbis will also certainly admit that one cannot class
Heter Mechirah produce as Mehadrin. Let us give an example of this. Before the last Shemittah,
the Chief Rabbi (89) of Ramat Gan, Rabbi Yaacov Ariel, who is one of the members of the “Otzar
Ha’aretz” Bet Din, was asked whether the Mehadrin restaurants in that city utilized Heter Mechirah
products. He answered that if they gave a “Mehadrin Hechsher,” the products used were not Heter
Mechirah. (90)

In the case of fruit however there is no question of “sefichim”. There is the question of “shamur
v’ne’evad” but many great authorities allow this, at least b’dieved. There is therefore a strong case
to prefer such fruit from Israeli Jewish sources rather than imported fruit, when no “Otzar Bet Din”
[produce storehouse of Bet Din that provides Shemittah fruit to the public] fruit is available in
one’s locality.

The question of what to eat in the Shemittah year is of course not a new question and it was already
put to Rabbi Moshe di Trani, the “Mabit” nearly five hundred years ago. Amongst the list of
products which he gave was “vegetables of non-Jews.” (91) As stated above, Rabbi Mordechai
Eliyahu gives priority to imported vegetables over Heter Mechirah produce.

Thus, when my choice as a consumer is between Heter Mechirah or imported vegetables, I

would use the imported ones. (92)

References

(1) Kommemiyut, (Bet El), no. 50, Parashat Bahar-Bechukotai, 23 Iyar 5767 – 11 May 2007, p.4.
(2) Rabbi Yehudah Amichai, Rabbi Yaacov Ariel, Rabbi Nechemiah Goldberg and Rabbi Dov Lior.
(3) B’sheva, no. 247, 5 Tammuz 5767 - 21 June 2007, p.35.
(4) “How will I know how to identify vegetables which are Heter Mechirah?” Answer by Rabbi Amichai, Otzar Ha’aretz,
(Internet: 212.199.215.132/otzar/answer9.asp).
(5) Rabbi Dr. Kalman Kahana, “The Sabbatical Year During the Generations,” Torah u’Mada, vol.2, no.2, Elul 5732 - September
1972, p.101.
(6) Mordechai Diskin, Divrei Mordechai, (Jerusalem, 5649 - 1889), pp.16-17.
(7) Open letter from Mordechai Gimpel Yaffe, Ketavim l’Toladot Chibat Zion v’Yishuv Eretz-Yisrael, [henceforth Ketavim].
vol.3, (Tel Aviv: Achdut, 5692 – 1932), letter 1322, col.891.
(8) Moshe Leib Lielienblum, Derech la’avor Gulim, (Warsaw: Achiasaf, 5659 -1899), pp.131-32.
(9) Rabbi Shmuel Mohilever, Rabbi Yisrael Trunk and Rabbi Shmuel Zanvil Klepfish.
(10) Rabbinical ruling, Hameliz, (St. Petersburg), no.58, 19 Adar II 5649 – 10 (22) March 1889, pp.2-3.
(11) Rabbi Yaacov David Willowski, Bet Ridbaz, Introduction to Pe’at Hashulchan, (Jerusalem, 5672 – 1912).
(12) Letter by Rabbi Moshe Nachum Wallenstein, Av Bet Din of Jerusalem, Habazeleth, (Jerusalem), no.46, 24 Sivan 5670 – 1
July 1910, p.297 (3).
(13) Rabbi Yaacov Shaul Elyashar, Dvar haShemittah, Hazewi, (Jerusalem), no.16, 11 Nissan 5648 – 23 March 1888, pp.7-10;
Rabbi Yaacov Shaul Elyashar, Simcha La’ish, (Jerusalem 5653 – 1893), Yoreh Deah, chap.26, pp.107-109.
(14) Public announcement, Habazeleth, (Jerusalem), no.6, 21 Marcheshvan 5649 – 26 October 1888, p.44 (4); Hora’at Rabanan
Kashishai to Pe’at Hashulchan, op. cit., Introduction.
(15) Hora’at Rabanan Kashishai to Pe’at Hashulchan, op. cit., Introduction.
(16) Rabbi Tuvia Rosenthal, Halachah M’voreret, (Warsaw, 5655 – 1895), Introduction, p.4.
(17) Dayan Dr. Isidor Grunfeld, The Jewish Dietary Laws, vol.2, (London: Soncino Press, 1972), pp.115-18, 124. The Bagatz
ruling (referred to later) p.10, incorrectly states that the Netziv and the Bet Halevi gave their agreement to the Heter Mechirah.

69
(18) Rabbi Yechiel Michel Epstein, Aruch Hashulchan Ha’atid, part 1, (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 5729 – 1969), chap.15,
para.9 (end).
(19) Rabbi Yoseph Engel, Otzrot Yoseph - part 2, Shvi’it bazman haze, (Vienna, 5688 – 1928), pp.90-102.
(20) Rabbi Avraham Bornstein, Avnei Nezer, (Warsaw, 5673 – 1913), Yoreh Deah, part 1, chap.458.
(21) Rabbi Kahana, op. cit., p.108.
(22) Letter from Dr. Leon Pinsker to the Netziv, 17 Adar I 5649 – 1889, Ketavim, vol.2, (Tel Aviv: Hapoel Hatzair, 5685 –
1925), letter 874, col.657.
(23) Letter from Yechiel Michel Pines to Rashi Pin, 9 Shevat 5649 – 1889, Ketavim, vol.2, op. cit., letter 866, cols.639-40.
(24) Rabbi Kahana, op. cit., p.109.
(25) Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak Hakohen Kook, Igrot haReiyah, vol. 1, (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 5722 – 1962), letter 207,
p.258.
(26) Bet Ridbaz, op. cit.
(27) Igrot haReiyah , op. cit., letter 177, pp.226-29.
(28) Ibid., vol. 2, letter 555, p.184.
(29) Ibid., vol. 1, letter 255, p.296.
(30) Ibid, letter 236, p.283, vol. 2, letter 400, p.57.
(31) Ibid., vol. 1, letter 177, p.227, vol. 2, letter 555, p.184.
(32) Ibid., vol. 1, letter 236, p.283.
(33) Open letter from three farmers from Ekron, Habazeleth (Jerusalem), no. 25, 21 Tevet 5670 – 2 January 1910, pp.127-28 (1 –
2).
(34) Israel Supreme Court, Bagatz 7120/07, Bagatz 7628/07, Ruling given 11 Marcheshvan 5768 – 23 October 2007, [henceforth
Bagatz], pp.4, 22.
(35) Ibid., pp. 20-21.
(36) “Rabbi Metzger Against Heter Mechira,” Arutz Sheva News Brief, 19 Tishri 5768 – 1 October 2007, (Internet:
www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/133995).
(37) Tzohar “Hashabbat” no.166, Parashat Noach, 1 Marcheshvan 5768, p.6.
(38) Ibid.
(39) Ibid., no.168, Parashat Vayera, 15 Marcheshvan 5768, p.5.
(40) Ibid., no.169, Parashat Chaye Sara, 22 Marcheshvan 5768, p.2.
(41) Ibid., no.166, op. cit, p.6.
(42) Hatzofe, 21 Marcheshvan 5768 - 2 November 2007, p.6; Jerusalem Post, 2 November 2007, p.14.
(43) “Tzohar’s alternative kashrut apparatus launched,” Ynet Jewish World, 30 October 2007, (Internet:
www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3465743,00.html).
(44) Rabbi Tzefanya Drori , Rabbi Yaacov Ariel, Rabbi Dov Lior and Rabbi Chaim Druckman.
(45) Bagatz, p.6.
(46) Ibid., p.34.
(47) Yated Ne’eman, (Bnei Brak), 13 Marcheshvan 5768 - 25 October 2007, p.2; Hamodia, (Jerusalem), 13 Marcheshvan - 25
October 2007, p.2.
(48) “Chief Rabbinate ordains substitute kashrut supervisors,” Ynet Jewish World, 4 November 2007, (Internet:
www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3467466,00.html).
(49) Lecture delivered by Rabbi Shlomo Goren to Jewish students at London University at Hillel House London in the 1960s
(prior to July 1966). The author of this paper was present at this lecture.
(50) Possibly, Rabbi Goren’s source is Igrot haReiyah, op. cit., vol.1, letter 177, p.226.
(51) Rabbi Shlomo Goren, “Validity of the Heter Mechirah for Shemittah after the establishment of the State of Israel,” Hatzofe,
(Tel Aviv), 12 Marcheshvan 5747 - 14 November 1986, p.8.
(52) Rabbi Moshe Ushpizai, Amudim, (Kibbutz Hadati), nos. 226-227, Adars 5725 – March 1965, pp 143-44.
(53) Rabbi Yosef Elyashiv, Rabbi Yehuda Shteinman, Rabbi Shmuel Vosner, Rabbi Michal Lefkowitz, Rabbi Pinchas
Scheinberg, Rabbi Nissim Karelitz, Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky, Rabbi Shmuel (the son of Rabbi Shlomo Zalman) Auerbach, Rabbi
Yehudah Shapira, Rabbi Yitzchak Sheiner, Rabbi Gershon Edelstein, Rabbi Meir Bergman, Rabbi Nissim Toledano, Rabbi
Yehuda Ades, and Rabbi Natan Finkel.
(54) “Kriat Kodesh,” Yated Ne’eman, 10 Elul 5767 - 24 August 2007, p.1.
(55) Rabbi Yoseph Tzvi Halevi, Hora’ot Sha’a, (Jerusalem, 5669 - 1909), pp.115-116, 124-25.
(56) Rabbi Ze’ev Vitman, Likrat Shemittah Mamlachtit b’Medinat Yisrael, (Alon Shevut: Tzomet. 5760 – 2000), p.29.
(57) Rabbi Moshe Levinger, Amudim, (Kibbutz Hadati), no. 224, Shevat 5725 – January 1965, p.115.
(58) Eliyahu Ganchovsky, Harav Mordechai Elishberg, (Jerusalem, 5697 – 1937), p.78.
(59) Rabbi Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin (“Hanetziv”), Meishiv Davar, part 2, (Jerusalem 5728 – 1968), chap.50.
(60) Related to the author by one of the guides of Neot Kedumim.
(61) “Heter Mechirah is launched,” Ynet News, 5 September 2007, (Internet: www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-
3446165,00.html).
(62) Rabbi Vitman, Likrat Shemittah…, op. cit., p.45 fn.9; Rabbi Ze’ev Vitman, Shemittah 5747 in Kfar Etzion,” (Kfar Etzion:
Hamayan, 5748-5749 – 1988-89), p.76 fn.85a.
(63) Rabbi Levinger, op. cit., p.115.

70
(64) Rabbi Yitzchak Weiss, Minchat Yitzchak, vol.8 , (Jerusalem, 5753 – 1993), Orach Chaim, chap.96, pp.184, 328.
(65) Rabbi Elazar Teitz, “Heter Mechira,” Mail-Jewish vol.34 no.28, 11 February 2001, (Internet: www.ottmall.com/mj ht
arch/v34/mj v34i28.html).
(66) There have actually been cases of this occurring. One was in Sha’alavim. The Rabbi of the community was very happy
about this since it proved the sale to be valid, [related to the author of this paper by a Rabbi at the Yeshivah Tichonit Sha’alavim
in the summer of 5753].
(67) “Behar – The Blessing of the Shemittah Year in our Time,” Jerusalem College of Technology Machon Lev, [n.d.], (Internet:
www.hra.jct.ac.il/judaica/dvarTorah/dt34.html).
(68) Israel Government, Suggested Budget for the Financial Year 2008, (Internet:
www.mof.gov.il/budget2007/docs2008/12.pdf).
(69) “Finance Ministry announces budget surplus of NIS 7.7 billion for 2007,” Haaretz.com, 4 December 2007, (Internet:
www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/931092.html).
(70) Machon Lev, op. cit.
(71) Jonathan Rosenblum, “Shmita is our test of faith, “Jerusalem Post, 30 November 2007, p.10.
(72) “Shmita year: Jordan farmers to the rescue,” Ynet Jewish World, 14 July 2007, (Internet:
www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3423793,00.html).
(73) These laws can be found in the many excellent books which bring the laws of Shemittah. (74) Dvar haShemittah, Kashrut
guide for the whole year, no.57, 5768, (Va’ad haShemittah/ Va’ad haKashrut of the Eda Charedit, Jerusalem), p.43.
(75) Rabbi Avraham Yeshayahu Karelitz, Chazon Ish, Zeraim, (Bnei Brak, 5719 – 1959), Shevi’it, chap.10 para.6.
(76) Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, Minchat Shlomo, vol.1, (Jerusalem: Sha’arei Ziv, 5746 – 1986), chap.44.
(77) Rabbi Shlomo Aviner, Iturei Kohanim, (Jerusalem: Yeshivat Ateret Kohanim), no. 192, Marcheshvan 5761 – 2000, Igrot
k’tsarot, p.13.
(78) Rabbi Teitz, op. cit.
(79) Ibid.
(80) Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu, Ma’amar Mordechai - V’shovta Ha’aretz, (Jerusalem: Darchei Hora’ah Lerabanim, [n.d. 5768 –
2007], p.118.
(81) Ibid. In the course of this book, this list is brought on a number of occasions but with differences. (pp. 65, 71-72, 190, 191,
194, 195). In the majority of the cases brought, imported products have priority over Heter Mechirah.
(82) Bet Ridbaz, op. cit.
(83) Rabbi Shlomo Aviner, “I choose Heter Mechirah,” B’ahavah uve’emunah,” no.639, Parashat Vayera 5768, 15 Marcheshvan
5768 - 2007, (Machon Meir), p.8.
(84) Statistical Abstract of Israel 2004, no.55, (Central Bureau of Statistics), Agriculture 19-10, table 19.5, (after the year 2004,
this Abstract did not differentiate between Jews and non-Jews); personal conversation with Rabbi Yehudah Amichai, 24
December 2007.
(85) Obviously one has to check for Terumot and Ma’asarot and Orlah.
(86) Rabbi Moshe Heiman, Hamitbach b’Shemittah, (Bnei Brak, 5753 – 1993), p.49.
(87) Kriat Kodesh, op. cit.
(88) Rabbi Yehudah Amichai, Answer to question received by the Rabbis of “Machon haTorah v’ha’aretz” on Heter Mechirah,
26 Shevat 5767 – 2007, (Internet:
www.moreshet.co.il/Webs/moreshet/shut/shutMachon.asp?codeClient=1555&codeSubWeb=0&id=84234).
(89) or possibly his representative.
(90) Question was put to him by the author of this paper.
(91) Rabbi Moshe di Trani, Responsa of Mabit, part 3, (Lvov, 5621 – 1861), chap.45.
(92) Grateful acknowledgements to: Yeshivat “Nir” Kiryat Arba Library; Kiryat Arba Municipal Library; Jewish National and
University Library Jerusalem; Rabbi Yehudah Amichai; the staff of Kommemiyut (Bet El); R’ Zvi Shpak.

71
 Field left uncultivated in observance of the shmita year, near Rosh
Ha'ayin (2007)

Shmita – Controversy and Community

Since 1888, Shmita, the agricultural sabbatical year, has ignited controversy. This year,
efforts are being made to reset the "reset year" with a focus on the environment and
spiritual well-being.

Rachel Neiman WRITES:16

The Jewish New Year 5775 is also a year of shmita, the sabbatical year of the seven-year cycle
mandated by the Torah for all agricultural produce grown the Land of Israel. Like most things
related to the seemingly benign occupation of farming, shmita is a hot-button topic, particularly

16
https://www.israel21c.org/shmita-controversy-and-community/

72
over the past 132 years since the 1882 First Aliya — also known as the Farmer’s Aliya — and
the introduction of modern agricultural methods to the Land of Israel.

“During shmita, the land is left to lie fallow and all agricultural activity, including plowing,
planting, pruning and harvesting, is forbidden by halakha (Jewish law). Other cultivation
techniques (such as watering, fertilizing, weeding, spraying, trimming and mowing) may be
performed as a preventative measure only, not to improve the growth of trees or other plants.
Additionally, any fruits which grow of their own accord are deemed hefker (ownerless) and may
be picked by anyone. A variety of laws also apply to the sale, consumption and disposal
of shmita produce. All debts, except those of foreigners, were to be remitted.”

In 1888-9, the debate over how to handle shmita turned into a personal and sometimes ugly
rivalry between the existing Yishuv and the new settlement. In an essay published by the Jewish
Journal, Rabbi John Rosove writes:

73
This tense situation was detailed above by Rabbi Simons: “There were some colonists who
observed the Shemittah. However, it was not easy for them since great pressure was put on them
from various sources. One of these sources was the overseers of Baron Edmond Rothschild who
was helping to financially support the new settlers.

“A further source of compulsion was the leaders of Hovevei Zion who stopped
giving financial support to the Shemittah observers. On this Dr. Leon Pinsker,
one of the founders and leaders of ‘Hovevei Zion’ wrote, ‘I gave an order to
stop supporting the community of Gedera if they do not work during
Shemittah.'”

74
“There were even people ‘who were not ashamed to involve the [Turkish] government in this
matter and they went and informed against them [the Shemittah observers] to the authorities
saying that the Jews were not working and would thus harm the treasury.’ Only a few of the
colonists were able to withstand this pressure.”

The solution arrived at for the Shmita year of 1888-9 was a rabbinic document known as a Heter
Mechira (“Sale Permit”) that allowed Jewish farmers to sell their land to non-Jews, similar to the
contracts for selling leavened products to non-Jews before Passover. With Heter Mechira, Jews
could continue working the land. With the end of the shmita year, ownership reverted
automatically back to the former owner.

The mechanism was supposed to be a one-time thing but — like so many things Israeli — has
persisted throughout the decade and not without controversy, whether over hydroponically grown
produce or the role of local rabbinical courts in approving the Heter Mechira. There is always
something.

The National Library of Israel has digitized its collection of posters and historical documents
relating to the ongoing debate over shmita, and presented it together with links to contemporary
Hebrew-language newspapers.

75
Interestingly, this year the Jewish community both in Israel and the Diaspora have seized
on shmita as an opportunity to introduce positive communal values into the public discourse.

So, for example, the Hazon organization’s Shmita Project is “working to expand awareness about
the biblical Sabbatical tradition, and to bring the values of this practice to life today to support
healthier, more sustainable Jewish communities.”

In turn, Hazon partner Teva Ivri, a non-profit organization promoting Jewish environmental
responsibility in Israel, established the Shmita Yisraelit, the Israeli Shmita Initiative, a platform of
individuals, NGOs, government officials, and corporate executives from all points on the Jewish
spectrum.

76
Shmita Yisraelit supports re-positioning the shmita year as a “reset year”, a time of personal
reflection, learning, social involvement, and environmental responsibility in Israel. The initiative
challenges Israelis to “change the rules of the game in the race of life”. Will it work? We have a
year to find out.

Baron Edmond de Rothschild & Palestine

Edmond de Rothschild with settlers in Palestine c.1930

Until his death in 1934, Baron Edmond de Rothschild (1845-1934) provided support for Jewish
colonists, overseeing dozens of new colonies, earning the name 'The Benefactor'.17

Edmond de Rothschild (1845-1934) was the youngest son of James and Betty de Rothschild. He
bore the Hebrew name Benjamin. He was born in Paris on 19 August 1845. Edmond joined the
Paris Banking House in 1868 becoming a director of the Est railway company and other family
concerns (making journeys to Bukhara to examine the potential of the oilfields of the area), and
devoting himself to art, culture and philanthropic interests. In 1877, he married Adelheid (1853-
1935), the daughter of Wilhelm Carl Rothschild (1828-1901).

17
https://www.rothschildarchive.org/family/philanthropy/baron_edmond_de_rothschild_and_palestine

77
Edmond's work in Palestine

A strong supporter of Zionism, his most outstanding achievements were involved in responding to
the threats facing the Jewish people in Europe in the late 19th century by supporting massive land
purchases and underwriting Jewish settlements in Palestine and Israel. Edmond's large donations
lent significant support to the movement during its early years, which helped lead to the
establishment of the State of Israel. In the 1880s, in his goal for the establishment of a Jewish
homeland, Edmond’s philanthropy funded Jewish settlements and encouraged the development of
agriculture and industry. 'The Benefactor', as he was known provided support for Jewish colonists,
overseeing dozens of new colonies. Rishon le Zion (the First in Zion) was followed by others
bearing the names of his parents. Edmond stimulated the economic development of the settlements
by investing in new crops, such as wine, grapefruit and avocado, and industrial enterprises such as
silk production; he played a key role in Israel's wine industry. Under the supervision of his
administrators in Ottoman Palestine, farm colonies and vineyards were established, and two major
wineries were opened in Rishon le Zion and Zikhron Ya'akov. Edmond paid his first visit to the
colonies in 1887, to inspect the progress that had been made in the first five years.

In 1899, responsibility for the Rothschild settlements was transferred to form the Palestine branch
of the Jewish Colonisation Association, which had been founded in 1891 by the Bavarian
philanthropist Baron Maurice de Hirsch to help Jews from Russia and Romania to settle in
Argentina. Baron de Hirsch died in 1896 and thereafter the JCA began to also assist the Jewish
settlement in Palestine. At the end of 1899, Edmond transferred title to his colonies in Palestine
plus fifteen million francs to the JCA.

In 1924, the JCA branch dealing with colonies in Palestine was reorganised by Baron Edmond as
the Palestine Jewish Colonisation Association (PICA), under the direction of his son, James de
Rothschild (1878-1957). PICA acquired more than 125,000 acres (50,586 ha) of land and
established a range of business ventures. As well as offices in Palestine, PICA had offices in
Paris. After the 1929 Palestine riots PICA helped to rehabilitate agricultural colonies that had been
damaged.

When Edmond died in Paris in 1934, he left a legacy which included the reclamation of nearly
500,000 dunams of land and almost 30 settlements. In 1954, his remains and those of his wife
Adelheid were brought to rest at Ramat Hanadiv in Zikhron Ya'akov. After Edmond's death, his
son James de Rothschild (1878-1957) presided over the affairs of PICA. In his will of 1957, James
instructed that PICA should transfer most of its land in Israel to the Jewish National Fund. On
December 31, 1958, PICA agreed to vest its right to land holdings in Syria and Lebanon in the
State of Israel. Edmond and James' determination to continue to support Israeli institutions was
carried out after their deaths by James' widow, Dorothy (1895-1988), who founded Yad Hanadiv.
Jacob, 4th Lord Rothschild has followed the family's charitable interests in Israel and is the
chairman of Yad Hanadiv, the family foundation which gave the Knesset and the Supreme Court
buildings to Israel.

78
 There’s Gleaning to Do: How Ancient Sabbatical Laws Can Work
in a Modern Economy

The ‘Shmita’ mandates debt forgiveness and that fields—and fieldworkers—rest.

In this new year, can we adopt such a practice?

JONATHAN BRANDOW WRITES:18

As the Jewish new year gets under way, we mark the start of the traditional sabbatical that
concludes a seven-year cycle and was historically mandated as an agricultural year of rest. The
sabbatical laws were faithfully observed from biblical times through the Talmudic era. Nowadays
they are mainly of interest to Jews in two camps: religiously observant communities that engage
in halakhic workarounds of the original lending and agricultural laws the Sabbatical Year
prescribed; and scattered liberals who tend to focus on the important and related biblical values of
environmental stewardship and personal enrichment that results from an employment sabbatical.

But the best-known Sabbatical Year source quote— “Proclaim liberty throughout the land unto all
the inhabitants thereof,” a passage from Leviticus found on the Liberty Bell—describes something
quite different. It celebrates ancient Jewish economic policies, including debt forgiveness, the
liberation of bonded labor, and the surrender of agricultural property whose flavor is more

18
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/community/articles/shmita-modern-economy

79
accurately captured by the Hebrew term Shnat Shmita, or Year of Release, and Yovel, the related
Jubilee, which occurs once every seven sabbatical cycles, roughly every 50 years. And while the
mechanics of the ancient Shmita may be foreign to contemporary sensibilities, the values behind
the laws speak directly to the modern reality of rampant consumer debt, deceptive loan practices,
undocumented workers trapped in economic cycles beyond their control, and even trans-
generational poverty. Aside from some discrete attempts—such as this one—to apply the
principles of Shmita to life now, Shmita values have pretty much slept in the attic of Jewish life
for two thousand years. We’ve moved far from their radical roots. But could they stand up to
modern adaptation, as Jewishly based economic policies? Yes. Should they? Let’s have a look.

During the ancient Shmita, farmers were forbidden from cultivating crops or selling produce that
grew naturally in their fields. Instead, they had to release to the public whatever grew. If their land
was fenced in, farmers were to prop open the gates for anyone to come and glean, as dictated
in Exodus: “In the seventh year you shall let (the land) rest and lie fallow . . . let the needy among
your people eat of it.”

Gleaners were allowed to store the produce that grew uncultivated during the Shmita year as long
as some also remained in the fields for wild animals to eat. Once the natural supply there was
exhausted, storage was prohibited. In other words, the more that was left in the fields for slower
gleaners and animals, the longer the harvested produce could be stored. This mechanism
encouraged balance between the needs of those who could store and those who gleaned day-to-
day, and between man and other living things.

Talmud came down hard on Shmita violators. Perpetrators faced financial penalties and public
disgrace. Even the fall of the second Temple and the 2,000-year Jewish exile were attributed by
the sages of the Talmud to widespread spiritual resistance to, and violation of, Sabbatical laws.

Although ancient Jewish law technically limited the Shmita prohibition on production to the
agricultural sector, some contemporary business analysts believe that adapted Shmita practices
should apply to today’s most critical industries—the closest modern equivalents of the ancient
agricultural engine.

Yossi Tsuria, for example, is a religiously observant former executive at NDS, one of Israel’s
largest technology firms. He has advocated extensively for modernized Shmita applications,
suggesting that Israeli high-tech firms sell product at cost for the duration of the year and extend
sabbaticals to employees. I propose a universal, employer-funded Sabbatical of three months per
cycle, creating a period of personal enrichment for those who go on leave and an opportunity for
employment for people who’ll be needed to plug the labor gap—all at a cost that IRS data indicates
would be sustainable by most U.S. industries. Among others, Standing Partnership, a St. Louis,
Mo.–based communications firm has pioneered sabbaticals for its 26 employees and says that the
practice “is one of the greatest retention tools we have.”

The historic Shmitaa frees us from debts incurred in the previous seven years. In the ancient world,
subsistence farmers struggling to make ends meet between harvests were typically those who took
out loans to avoid going under.

80
As the economy deteriorated under the Romans around the turn of the first millennium, lenders
grew reluctant to take on debtors as the Shmita approached. Their hesitance elicited a panic; how
would the small farming class survive if it could not borrow money between harvests? Rabbi
Hillel came up with a solution called the Prosbul. It effectively escrowed debts with a court during
the Shmita year. That is, debt was deferred—not erased—in order to encourage lenders to continue
making interest-free loans, which were the only legal type at that time. But the mechanism failed
to respond to the original social basis of Shmita policy: wrenching debt among a population that
lived permanently on the financial precipice.

Although one Talmudic discussion noted that Hillel “disregarded the precept laid down in the
Torah,” that called directly for absolute debt forgiveness, most commentators signed on to the
Prosbul. Basing their acceptance on a threadbare technicality, the majority agreed that unforeseen
consequences (in this case, the inability to access no-interest survival loans, rather than liberation
from debt) trumped the literal Torah decree. Yet all sides to the debate supported the objective of
giving the poor an economic re-start opportunity.

In the ancient era, the lack of available credit was the most common cause of spiraling debt,
foreclosure, and even personal freedom. Today it’s the casual availability of credit that creates
unsustainable debt. Crushing contemporary debt often begins with misleading loans and heavily
promoted lures of materialism; at the height of the mortgage crisis about one-third of all U.S.
mortgage borrowers were “underwater”—owing more on high-risk loans than their property was
worth. More recently, a surge in predatory car loans (often courtesy of the same banks responsible
for the mortgage meltdown) has again demonstrated the creepy ingenuity of lenders. And less-
regulated lending—steep-rate credit cards, the payday loan industry, and pawn shops—entice
economically desperate populations with promises of quick, easy credit or cash availability at
often-obscured exorbitant rates plus fees. Proliferating in urban areas, more than 30,000 payday
loan storefronts are the outposts of a $30 billion+ cyclical debt industry.

In addition to uniform restrictions on interest rate caps, a modern application of Shmita debt
release values might include a seven-year cycle of debt forgiveness for credit card, payday-related
and sub-prime interest debt. Faced with an approaching debt release deadline, both credit card and
payday industries would become increasingly reluctant to issue high-interest credit, reducing the
debt load on the most vulnerable populations for several years before the Shmita year itself. In the
seventh year the shofar blows, so to speak—and remaining debt would be erased.

If a farmer in the biblical era failed to repay even the traditional interest-free debt, his predicament
likely resulted in either indentured servitude or the surrender of his ancestral land decried
in Isaiah’s plaint against monopolists who “join field to field until no space remains.”
The Shmita laws proclaiming release from indentured servitude provided an escape from this
gruesome cycle.

This was no small problem. Josephus describes mass debt rebellions in the Galilee during the
Roman Wars. Even early Christian admonitions to “forgive our debts as we forgive those who are
indebted to us” indicate the havoc wrought by the debt-and-indenture cycle.

81
Indentured servitude resulted from intractable debt triggered by economic conditions over which
the victim had no control. Prodded by the black hand of the market, some entered into servitude
as a voluntary arrangement to avoid penalties they considered more onerous losing that ancestral
land grant, for example.

While the modern economy has all but eradicated the formal structure of indentured servitude,
entrapment in cyclical poverty is an ongoing phenomenon. Its current victims are caught in webs
of dictated wages, dead-end jobs, and take-it-or-leave-it conditions. In the most striking parallel to
ancient forms of servitude, undocumented economic refugees and sex slaves often suffer living
arrangements inspired by sharecropping and 19th-century mining towns where owners controlled
not only conditions of work but also housing, shopping, and prices designed to dig workers and
their families deeper and deeper into debt.

Breaking the cycle of debt and indenture was a prime target of Shmita laws.
Modern Shmita practices would reflect a Jewish ethos of “one law for all,” as well as liberty from
contemporary forms of servitude in the seventh year. They would include permanently valid
documentation and labor rights for non-seditious, noncriminal undocumented workers. Especially
at the Shmita, there should be spiritual room in every sukkah and synagogue for the indentured
servants of modernity, advocating for the call of Leviticus to treat “the stranger who resides with
you … as one of your citizens.”

While the laws of the Yovel—or Jubilee Year—generally parallel those of the Shmita, there is one
that is unique: the requirement to repatriate property to its original owner. It is perhaps the most
radical, and to modern ears, the most discomfiting economic concept in the lexicon of Jewish law.

As described in Leviticus, the land was returned to its original owners once in the space of every
two or three generations. Interim owners profited from its use, but their tenure was limited. The
cycle of repatriation provided the offspring of those who had lost their place in the world a chance
to reclaim it.

Despite the increasing concentration of wealth in modern economies, Western societies offer no
similar initiatives to refresh economic opportunity from generation to generation. Modern
frameworks of wealth-based privilege and old-boy estate transfer laws upend any semblance of a
level trans-generational playing field.

The rights to bequeath and inherit present vexing issues. Virtually all cultures value the concept of
creating wealth to leave behind for one’s children. In today’s environment, the very idea of
repatriated property seems far-fetched (though this is the kernel of even the weakest estate tax
laws). And yet, while the return of hard assets to original individual owners would present a
staggering political and technical undertaking in the modern economy, the justice ethic behind
the Yovel—especially in an era of stubborn and deepening income inequality—is as valid now as
it was when it was conceived.

An estate-transfer policy that supported Yovel values would acknowledge three conflicting human
desires: to convey accrued wealth to descendants; to reward wealth creators with the ability to pass
on their assets; and to incrementally rebalance the playing field in each generation.

82
The current paradigm supports the first two of these values but certainly not the third.
A Yovel initiative would permit all wealth created by an individual to be passed on to two
successive generations. At the third generation (comparable to the 50-year Jubilee interval) the
portion of that wealth above a statutory threshold (say $500,000, which excludes the overwhelming
majority of estates) would be repatriated to the general populace. Based on the value of gross
taxable estates reflected in IRS data, the annual distribution would be more than $3,000 per U.S.
household in current dollars, even if distribution included the wealthy. That’s more than 10 percent
additional buying power for families in poverty.

Debt forgiveness, release from servitude, and trans-generational transfers are economic re-start
values lifted straight from Jewish source texts—values that speak to contemporary crises and
societal needs. How better to spark interest in Jewish life and thought than by activating values
that speak directly to modern social ills? No one said it more eloquently than the Labor-Zionist
writer Berl Katznelson in 1934 when he called for Jews to “excavate the dust from that which had
laid in forgetfulness, to resuscitate traditions which have the power to stimulate the generation of
renewal.” Halevai.

83