Moed Katan 2b - Hamenakhech vehamachké bechabat oubeyom tov
Save
Copy
Add to Collection
Export to Google Docs
ShareMoed Katan iyoun
אִתְּמַר הַמְנַכֵּשׁ וְהַמַּשְׁקֶה מַיִם לִזְרָעִים בְּשַׁבָּת מִשּׁוּם מַאי מַתְרִינַן בֵּיהּ רַבָּה אָמַר מִשּׁוּם חוֹרֵשׁ רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר מִשּׁוּם זוֹרֵעַ אָמַר רַבָּה כְּווֹתִי דִּידִי מִסְתַּבְּרָא מָה דַּרְכּוֹ שֶׁל חוֹרֵשׁ לְרַפּוֹיֵי אַרְעָא הַאי נָמֵי מְרַפֵּויי אַרְעָא אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף כְּווֹתִי דִּידִי מִסְתַּבְּרָא מָה דַּרְכּוֹ שֶׁל זוֹרֵעַ לְצַמּוֹחֵי פֵּירָא הָכָא נָמֵי מְצַמַּח פֵּירָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַבָּה לְדִידָךְ קַשְׁיָא וּלְרַב יוֹסֵף קַשְׁיָא לְדִידָךְ קַשְׁיָא מִשּׁוּם חוֹרֵשׁ אִין מִשּׁוּם זוֹרֵעַ לָא לְרַב יוֹסֵף קַשְׁיָא מִשּׁוּם זוֹרֵעַ אִין מִשּׁוּם חוֹרֵשׁ לָא וְכִי תֵּימָא כׇּל הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא תַּרְתֵּי לָא מִיחַיַּיב אֶלָּא חֲדָא וְהָאָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא זוֹמֵר וְצָרִיךְ לָעֵצִים חַיָּיב שְׁתַּיִם אַחַת מִשּׁוּם נוֹטֵעַ וְאַחַת מִשּׁוּם קוֹצֵר קַשְׁיָא
MISHNA: One may irrigate a field that requires irrigation on the intermediate days of a Festival as well as during the Sabbatical Year, both from a newly emerged spring that began to flow only during the Festival, and from a spring that did not just emerge and that has been flowing for some time. However, one may not irrigate a field with rainwater collected in a cistern, a procedure that requires excessive exertion, or with water drawn with a shadoof [kilon], a lever used to raise water with a bucket from deep down in a well. And one may not construct circular ditches around the bases of grapevines on the intermediate days of a Festival. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: One may not construct a new water channel during the intermediate days of a Festival or during the Sabbatical Year. And the Rabbis say: One may construct a new water channel during the Sabbatical Year and one may repair damaged water channels during the intermediate days of a Festival. In addition to performing labor on one’s own property in order to avoid financial loss, it is also permitted to perform labor on the intermediate days of a Festival for the public welfare: One may repair damaged water cisterns that are in the public domain, and clean them out by removing the dirt and sediment that accumulated there; one may repair roads, streets, and ritual baths; and one may tend to all other public needs. So too, one may mark graves to inform the public of their ritual impurity, and inspectors may even go out to uproot the shoots of prohibited diverse kinds [kilayim] that grew in the fields during the rainy season. GEMARA: The Gemara begins by questioning the wording of the mishna: Now that it has been said that on the intermediate days of a Festival one may irrigate a field from a newly emerged spring, whose walls have not yet stabilized and are likely to collapse, necessitating laborious repairs, is it necessary to mention that one may irrigate a field from a spring that did not just emerge, whose walls have already stabilized and are therefore not likely to collapse? The Gemara answers: They say that it was necessary to mention the second case as well. For had the tanna taught us the halakha with regard to only a newly emerged spring, I would have said that here, in the case of a field that requires irrigation, yes, one is permitted to irrigate from such a spring, but in the case of a field that ordinarily suffices with rainwater, no, one is not permitted to do so, because it is likely to collapse. But with regard to a spring that did not just emerge, that is not likely to collapse, I might say that one may provide supplementary irrigation even in the case of a field that ordinarily suffices with rainwater. Therefore, the tanna teaches us that a newly emerged spring is no different from a spring that did not just emerge. In the case of a field that requires irrigation, yes, one may irrigate on the intermediate days of a Festival, while in the case of a field that ordinarily suffices with rainwater, no, one may not do so, even from an established spring. The Gemara raises a question with regard to a linguistic issue: And from where may it be inferred that this term, beit hashelaḥin, a field that requires irrigation, is a term denoting thirst, implying that supplementary watering is necessary? The Gemara answers: As it is written: “And you were faint and weary” (Deuteronomy 25:18). The term faint is referring to the thirst of the Israelites in the desert. And, in the standard Aramaic translation, we translate the verse as: And you were thirsty [meshalhei] and weary. The letters ḥet and heh are sometimes interchanged, and therefore the term beit hashelaḥin connotes a thirsty field. And from where may it be inferred that this term, beit haba’al, a field that suffices with rainwater, is a term denoting settlement, i.e., an established field that does not require extensive upkeep? As it is written: “For as a young man takes to himself [yiv’al] a virgin, so shall your sons take you to themselves” (Isaiah 62:5). And it is translated in the Aramaic translation: As a young man settles down with a virgin, so shall your sons become settled within you. Similarly, beit haba’al is referring to a settled field that suffices with rainwater. The Gemara begins to clarify the underlying principle of the mishna, asking: Who is the anonymous tanna of the mishna who maintains that labor performed to prevent a considerable loss, such as watering a field that requires irrigation, yes, it is permitted on the intermediate days of a Festival; but labor performed to increase one’s profit, such as watering a field that ordinarily suffices with rainwater, no, it is not permitted? Furthermore, even in a case involving loss, one may not excessively exert oneself, as the tanna of the mishna renders prohibited all cases of watering fields with collected rainwater or with water drawn with a shadoof, even in a field that requires irrigation. Rav Huna said: It is Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, as we learned in a mishna: Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: In a field filled with trees, one may draw water via channels from tree to tree, provided that in doing so he does not water the entire field. As this field ordinarily suffices with rainwater, it is prohibited to water the entire field. Therefore, it is evident that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov renders prohibited work performed to increase profit on the intermediate days of a Festival. The Gemara challenges this comparison: Say that you heard that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov holds that labor performed only to increase profit is not permitted. But did you hear him prohibit excessive exertion in a case of considerable loss? This aspect of the mishna finds no expression in the words of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov. Rather, Rav Pappa said: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: From a newly emerged spring one may irrigate even a field that ordinarily suffices with rainwater; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: One may irrigate only a field requiring irrigation that dried up and needs water. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: Neither the one nor the other. Furthermore, Rabbi Yehuda said: Owing to the exertion involved, one may not divert a water channel from its regular path in order to water his garden or his ruin, which is now being used for planting, during the intermediate days of a Festival. The Gemara first clarifies the case of the baraita: What does Rabbi Yehuda mean when he speaks of a field that is dried up? If we say that the field is literally dried up and the plants are already parched, why do I need to water it? Abaye said: It means that the one spring from which the field had been irrigated until now dried up, but in the meantime another spring emerged. If the field is not irrigated from this spring, it will be ruined. The Gemara explains the next clause of the baraita, which states: Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: Neither the one nor the other. By this he means that it is no different whether the original spring dried up or did not dry up. The guiding principle is: From a newly emerged spring one may not irrigate even a field that requires irrigation. In any event, Rabbi Yehuda seems to maintain an opinion that is like that of the mishna, i.e., that only a field that requires irrigation may be watered, but not a field that suffices with rainwater. And even in the case of a field that requires irrigation, excessive exertion is prohibited. The Gemara challenges this understanding: And from where do you conclude that the mishna reflects the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? Perhaps Rabbi Yehuda stated that a field that requires irrigation, yes, one may irrigate it on the intermediate days of a Festival, and a field that suffices with rainwater, no, one may not do so, only with regard to a newly emerged spring, as it is likely to collapse. But in the case of a spring that did not just emerge, which is not likely to collapse because its walls have already stabilized, even a field that ordinarily suffices with rainwater may be irrigated. The Gemara asks: If that were so, then to whom, i.e., to which tanna, would you attribute the mishna? According to this interpretation, the mishna does not correspond to any opinion, while according to the previous interpretation, it corresponds to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Rather, it must be that according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, a newly emerged spring is no different from a spring that did not just emerge. A field that requires irrigation, yes, it may be irrigated, while a field that suffices with rainwater, no, it may not be irrigated. And the baraita opted to teach this dispute in the case of a newly emerged spring in order to convey the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Rabbi Meir, which states that one may irrigate even from a newly emerged spring, and even a field that suffices with rainwater. § It was stated that the amora’im disputed the following question: With regard to one who weeds or one who waters seedlings on Shabbat, for what prohibited labor do we forewarn him? Judicial punishment may be administered to a sinner only if he has been forewarned by two witnesses prior to the commission of his offense. This forewarning must include the specific transgression being violated, and on Shabbat it must include the specific category of prohibited labor that the action involves. Rabba said: It is due to the prohibition against plowing. Rav Yosef said: It is due to the prohibition against sowing. Rabba said: According to my opinion it is reasonable. Just as the usual objective of plowing is to loosen the earth, so too, this, weeding or watering, loosens the earth. Rav Yosef said: According to my opinion, it is reasonable. Just as the usual objective of sowing is to cause the fruit to grow, here too, weeding or watering causes the fruit to grow. Abaye said to Rabba: According to your opinion, it is difficult, and according to the opinion of Rav Yosef, it is difficult. Abaye explains: According to your opinion, it is difficult: Is it true that for the prohibition against plowing, yes, he is forewarned, but for the prohibition against sowing, no, he is not forewarned? Similarly, according to the opinion of Rav Yosef, it is difficult: Can it be that for the prohibition against sowing, yes, he is forewarned, but for the prohibition against plowing, no, he is not forewarned? Everyone should agree that weeding and watering fall under the categories of both plowing and sowing. And if you say that anywhere that there are two possible categories of prohibited labor into which a particular action might fall, one is liable to be punished for only one of them, didn’t Rav Kahana say: If one prunes the branches of a vine on Shabbat and he needs the wood for firewood or any other purpose, he is liable to bring two sin-offerings? He is liable to bring one sin-offering for violating the primary category of sowing, as pruning vines facilitates their growth, and so it is a sub-category of sowing. And he is liable to bring one sin-offering for violating the primary category of reaping, as the essence of reaping is detaching that which one needs from the ground. Since he needs the wood that he is detaching from the vine, his action is considered reaping. Consequently, one action that incorporates two prohibited labors causes liability for both. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is difficult according to both opinions. Rav Yosef raised an objection to the opinion of Rabba from what is taught in the following baraita: One who weeds in proximity to diverse kinds of seeds, or covers with earth the exposed roots of diverse kinds, is flogged for transgressing the prohibition against diverse kinds, i.e., tending different species of crops in one area of the same field, as it is stated: “You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed” (Leviticus 19:19). Rabbi Akiva says: Even one who maintains in his field a mixture of species that he could have uprooted is flogged for violating the prohibition against diverse kinds of seeds. Rav Yosef explains: Granted, according to my opinion, that I say that one who weeds on Shabbat is forewarned for the prohibited labor of sowing, this is the reason he is liable to be punished with flogging for weeding diverse seeds: Sowing diverse kinds is prohibited. But according to you, who said that one who weeds on Shabbat is forewarned for plowing, why is one liable to be flogged for weeding in proximity to diverse kinds? Is plowing prohibited in connection with diverse kinds? At the time of plowing, there is no mixture of different species of crops, so plowing cannot be prohibited in this case. Rabba said to him: According to my opinion, one who weeds a field of diverse kinds is flogged not because he is guilty of plowing, but for violating the prohibition against maintaining a mixture of species in his field. The Gemara objects: However, from the fact that it teaches in the latter clause of the baraita that Rabbi Akiva says: Even one who maintains in his field a mixture of species is liable to be flogged, it may be inferred that according to the anonymous first tanna, the liability for weeding is not for maintaining diverse kinds, but for performing some other prohibited labor. The Gemara rejects this opinion: In fact, the entire baraita reflects the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, and it is stated in the style of what is the reason. The baraita should be understood as follows: What is the reason that one who weeds and one who covers the exposed roots of diverse kinds with earth is flogged? He is flogged for maintaining diverse kinds in his field, as Rabbi Akiva says: Even one who maintains in his field a mixture of species is flogged. With regard to Rabbi Akiva’s opinion, the Gemara asks: What is the reason for Rabbi Akiva’s opinion? How did he derive this prohibition from the verses? The Gemara answers: As it is taught in a baraita: “You shall not sow your field with mingled seed” (Leviticus 19:19). I have derived from this verse that only sowing diverse kinds is prohibited. From where is it derived that maintaining diverse kinds, which does not involve any positive action, is also prohibited? The verse states: “Diverse kinds, you shall not sow your field with mingled seed” (Leviticus 19:19). The prohibition against planting different species of a crop in one area of the same field is preceded in the verse by the prohibition against crossbreeding livestock: “You shall not let your cattle gender with a diverse kind.” A slight change in punctuation yields the phrase: Diverse kinds in your field, you shall not, indicating that merely preserving diverse kinds in one’s field is prohibited. § 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: “And this is the manner of the release, every creditor will release that which he has lent to his neighbor” (Deuteronomy 15:2), 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. 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,
קא מרפויי ארעא. דבתר עיקר המלאכה אזלינן ודומה לחורש ורב יוסף אע"ג דעיקר מלאכה דומה לחורש מחשבת הנפש לאו לרפויי ארעא ובהכי פליגי דרבה סבר לבתר המעשה מדמינן לה ולא אחר המחשבה ורב יוסף סבר בתר מחשבה אזלינן דהויא עיקר ולא אזלינן בתר הדמיון:
הַחוֹרֵשׁ כָּל שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב. הַמְנַכֵּשׁ בְּעִקְּרֵי הָאִילָנוֹת וְהַמְקַרְסֵם עֲשָׂבִים אוֹ הַמְזָרֵד אֶת הַשָּׂרִיגִים כְּדֵי לְיַפּוֹת אֶת הַקַּרְקַע הֲרֵי זֶה תּוֹלֶדֶת חוֹרֵשׁ וּמִשֶּׁיַּעֲשֶׂה כָּל שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב. וְכֵן הַמַּשְׁוֶה פְּנֵי הַשָּׂדֶה כְּגוֹן שֶׁהִשְׁפִּיל הַתֵּל וְרִדְּדוֹ אוֹ מִלֵּא הַגַּיְא חַיָּב מִשּׁוּם חוֹרֵשׁ. וְשִׁעוּרוֹ כָּל שֶׁהוּא. וְכֵן כָּל הַמַּשְׁוֶה גֻּמּוֹת שִׁעוּרוֹ כָּל שֶׁהוּא:
הַזּוֹרֵעַ כָּל שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב. הַזּוֹמֵר אֶת הָאִילָן כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּצְמַח הֲרֵי זֶה מֵעֵין זוֹרֵעַ. אֲבָל הַמַּשְׁקֶה צְמָחִין וְאִילָנוֹת בְּשַׁבָּת הֲרֵי זֶה תּוֹלֶדֶת זוֹרֵעַ וְחַיָּב בְּכָל שֶׁהוּא. וְכֵן הַשּׁוֹרֶה חִטִּין וּשְׂעוֹרִין וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן בַּמַּיִם הֲרֵי זֶה תּוֹלֶדֶת זוֹרֵעַ וְחַיָּב בְּכָל שֶׁהוּא:
One who plows a minimal amount is liable. One who weeds around tree roots, one who removes grass and one who prunes twigs to beautify the land are surely [doing] a subcategory of plowing; so from when he does a minimal amount, he is liable. Likewise, one who evens out the surface of a field – such as one who lowered a mound and flattened it or one who filled in a gully – is liable on account of plowing, and its [requisite] amount is a minimal amount. Likewise the [requisite] amount for anyone who evens out hole is a minimal amount. One who sows a minimal amount is liable. One who prunes a tree in order for it to grow is surely [doing a] derivative of sowing. But one who waters plants and trees on Shabbat is surely [doing a] subcategory of sowing, so he is [also] liable with a minimal amount. Likewise, one who soaks wheat and barley and that which is similar to them in water is surely [doing a] subcategory of sowing, so he is liable with a minimal amount.
אבל המשקה צמחים כו'. כתב הרב המגיד מימרא פרק קמא דמ''ק אתמר המנכש וכו' (עיין במ''מ). ופסק רבינו כרב יוסף עכ''ל. ויש לתמוה שהרי במנכש פסק רבינו בסמוך כרבה דהוי תולדת חורש. ואפשר שרבינו מפרש דתרי גווני מנכש הוו וההוא דמ''ק הוי משום זורע דהיינו שעוקר העשבים רעים והוא סבה שיצמחו ביותר העשבים הטובים והאי הוא דהוי תולדת זורע ומנכש דנקט רבינו הכא היינו שחופר בעיקרי האילנות האי הוא דהוי תולדת חורש. ומ''מ יש לתמוה למה השמיט רבינו מנכש דמ''ק:
חייב שתים. קשיא לרבה דאזיל בתר הדמיון דהכא זומר לא דמי כלל לנוטע ואעפ"כ חייב משום נוטע וקשיא לרב יוסף דאפילי אינו מתכוין לצמוח הגפן כיון דודאי מצמחה מחמת הזימור חייב משום נוטע דהא סתם קאמר רב כהנא אפילו לא חישב ליטע ואי קשיא הא דאמרינן בדוכתא אחריתי (כתובות דף לז.) משום רשעה אחת אתה מחייבו ואי אתה מחייבו משום שתי רשעיות תריץ הכי כגון דאיכא מיתה ומלקות אבל תרתי מילי דאסירן דדמיין להדדי בשתי מלקיות תרוייהו חד רשעה הוא ולא ממעטי מרשעתו דכל שם מלקות חד רשעה הוא והכי נמי אמר במס' פסחים בפ' כל שעה (פסחים דף כד. ושם) אמר אביי אכל פוטיתא לוקה ארבע ואע"ג דרב כהנא אמורא הוא מקשי מיניה לרבה ורב יוסף משום דגברא רבה הוה כדאשכחן (ב"ק דף קיז.) במעשה דר' יוחנן דהוה חריף טובא וקשיא ל"ג כיון דלאו תנא הוא לא חשיב לה כל כך ופליגי עליה:
מְפַקְּחִין פִּקּוּחַ נֶפֶשׁ בְּשַׁבָּת וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לִטּל רְשׁוּת מִבֵּית דִּין. וְהַמַּקְדִּים לְהַצִּיל הַנֶּפֶשׁ הֲרֵי זֶה מְשֻׁבָּח. כֵּיצַד. רָאָה תִּינוֹק שֶׁנָּפַל לַיָּם פּוֹרֵשׂ מְצוּדָה וּמַעֲלֵהוּ וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא צָד הַדָּגִים עִמּוֹ. שָׁמַע שֶׁטָּבַע תִּינוֹק בַּיָּם וּפָרַשׂ מְצוּדָה לְהַעֲלוֹתוֹ וְהֶעֱלָה דָּגִים בִּלְבַד פָּטוּר מִכְּלוּם. נִתְכַּוֵּן לְהַעֲלוֹת דָּגִים וְהֶעֱלָה דָּגִים וְתִינוֹק פָּטוּר אֲפִלּוּ לֹא שָׁמַע שֶׁטָּבַע הוֹאִיל וְהֶעֱלָה תִּינוֹק עִם הַדָּגִים פָּטוּר:
We must save an endangered life on the Sabbath without first asking for permission from a religious authority. The more speedily a man saves a life, the more praise he deserves. If, for example, he sees a child falling into the lake on the Sabbath, he may cast a net and pull him out, even though he is likely to catch some fish along with him. [If] he heard that an infant was drowning in the sea, and he spread his net to bring him up but only brought up fish, he is completely exempt. If he intended to bring up fish, and he brought up fish and the infant, he is exempt. Since he brought up a child with the fish, even though he did not hear that he was drowning, he is exempt.
Hagaot Maïmoniot (Ot Beth)
מותר לילך על גבי עשבים בין לחים בין יבשים כיון שאינו מתכוין לתלוש אבל האוכלים בגנות אסורים ליטול ידיהם על העשבים שמשקים אותם אע"פ שאינם מכוונים פסיק רישיה הוא אבל מותר להטיל בהם מי רגלים או שאר משקים שאינם מצמיחין: הגה ולכן טוב להחמיר שלא לאכול בגנות אם ישתמש שם מים דבקושי יש ליזהר שלא יפלו שם מים (ב"י בשם סה"ת):
3. One is permitted to walk on grass, whether it is dry or wet, because he does not intend to uproot it. However, those who eat in the garden are forbidden to wash their hands over the garden, because they water the plants. Even though this is not their intention, it is an unavoidable consequence ("psik reisha") of their action. However, it is permitted to urinate on them or to dispense other liquids that do not make the plants grow. Rem"a: Therefore, it is a good idea to be stringent and to not eat in a garden if one is using water, because it is difficult to be careful not to spill some water there (Beit Yosef in the name of Sefer HaTrumah).
Maguen Avraham (samekh kouf " hé)
מותר לילך ע"ג עשבים וכו' - עיין במ"ב והנה נמצא בסמ"ג דבר פלא שכתב במלאכת קוצר אין עולין באילן גזירה שמא יתלוש ואמרינן נמי בעירובין פרק המוצא תפילין אסור להלך ע"ג עשבים בשבת במקום שא"א לו שלא יתלוש והוא פלא דהא מסקנא דתלמודא התם דשרי בכולהו גוונא שהוזכרו שם כיון דקי"ל כר"ש יע"ש בגמרא והנה המהרש"ל בביאורו לסמ"ג כתב שם ג"כ דברים תמוהים בזה ודעתו דבכל אלה הוי פסיק רישא רק דמותר משום דאין מלאכת מחשבת וכתב זאת כדי לפרש דברי הסמ"ג שם והוא נגד כמה ראשונים דכתבו בהדיא דלא הוי פס"ר [עיין באו"ז שלהי עירובין ובריטב"א שם וכן משמע בטור והמחבר] וכבר השיג עליו בספר מאמר מרדכי ואפילו אם נניח הכל כדבריו ג"כ אינו מובן דברי הסמ"ג דכיון דע"פ מסקנת הגמרא הכל שרי היכי קחשיב זה הסמ"ג בתולדה שם. אכן באמת דברי הסמ"ג מועתקים מספר יראים בתולדה דחורש עי"ש ונ"ל לבאר דבריהם בדרך פשוט והוא דלא היה ניחא לו לומר דגם מימרא דרמי בר אבא דאסור לילך ע"ג עשבים משום דאץ ברגלים יהיה קאי רק אליבא דס"ד ודעתייהו דהאי מימרא קאי אפילו אליבא דמסקנא דקי"ל כר"ש ומיירי היכי דהוי פס"ר כגון שהוא הולך במהרה ורץ ע"ג עשבים והעשבים הם ארוכים דאז בודאי א"א שלא יהיו נתלשים וזהו מה דמסיים ע"ז ואץ ברגלים חוטא היינו שהוא אץ ונמהר ברגליו לילך עליהם [וכה"ג כתב היראים שם בסוגיא דשבת גבי אבין צפוראה דלא קאי אליבא דר"י רק אליבא דר"ש ובאופן דהוי פס"ר כגון גבי כלים גדולים עי"ש]:
או שאר משקים וכו' - קשה דלפי מה שכתב הסמ"ג והובא בהגה"מ והעתיקו המגן אברהם דהמשקה מים חייב משום חורש ג"כ אמאי כתב דביין מותר וה"ה בשאר משקים שאינם מצמיחין נהי דאינו מועיל להזרעים עכ"פ מרפה הקרקע ע"י הלחלוחית ויתחייב משום חורש ושמא י"ל דלא אמרו בזה משום חורש רק היכי דהוא מועיל להזרעים ג"כ אבל היכי דהוא מקלקל להזרעים אפשר דאין מתיפה הקרקע ג"כ וכעין זה מצאתי ג"כ במאמ"ר אבל הוא דוחק וצ"ע ודע דבספר תפארת ישראל כתב דבחכמת אקאנאמיע אמרו שמי רגלים הם טובים מאד לזבל הקרקע א"כ מזבל תולדת חורש הוא עכ"ל ולא נהגו העולם ליזהר בזה כלל וגם משבת פ"א ע"ב מוכח שלא כדבריו דהלא אי אפשר לגדולים בלא קטנים ולדבריו היה אסור גם לפנות על שדה ניר בשבת מחמת חרישה ולא משמע שם כן עי"ש:
Baal haterouma (siman rech lamed hé)
Maguen Avraham (samekh kouf " zaïn)
