Here is the second Halakhah in Brief this week. A somewhat shorter version will appear at the RJC, since I had to fit it all (with last week's) onto 2 sides of a page.

When it comes to harvesting the crops of shemittah, we run into several important issues. Harvesting is only a problem for that produce which has the status of shemittah-produce, as opposed to the prohibitions of planting which apply to the Land itself, and therefore apply throughout that year. This leads to all sorts of complicated charts that help us know when which kinds of produce have entered the shemittah state, depending on their particular growth cycles.

Some kind of harvesting is prohibited on a de-oraita level—the Torah says "et sefiah ketsirekha lo tiksor ve-et `invei nezirekha lo tivtsor, that which grows by itself you may not reap and the grapes of your untended vine you may not gather." On the other hand, the Torah defines this as a year in which the fruit of the land will be available for all to eat, so there must be some permissible way to enjoy the fruits of the land in that year.

There are four main positions on this issue that R. Rimon quotes, revolving around two questions. First, we can differentiate between produce that has been guarded and produce that has been left open for anyone to take, as the Torah mandates. Second, we can discuss harvesting in the ordinary way or in some unusual way (which we will define in a moment). The most stringent position, using these two markers, is that of Rabbenu Tam, who believed that produce that had been guarded was completely prohibited, while produce that was left open (hefker) needed to be harvested in some kind of unusual manner. On the other end of the spectrum, Rash (a Tosafist, R. Shimshon of Sens, known as Rash mi-Shants) was of the opinion that hefker produce could be harvested as normal, while guarded produce required a shinui, a change, in its harvesting. Without reviewing the other positions, we can already see that the two relevant questions are: 1)whether transgressing the Torah’s demand that we leave our fields open to all produces some kind of tangible negative consequence (such as the produce becoming prohibited, or at least requiring a change in its harvesting), and 2) whether part of the shemittah process is that we may not cut down produce in the ordinary fashion, as part of showing a lack of our ownership over the Land.

Rishonim refer to two different kinds of changes we can make in our harvesting, a change in the physical act or a change in the quantity. Some rishonim felt that all that was required was that we use a different tool than usual to cut down the produce. Rambam, however, believed that we were not allowed to reap as much at one time as in an ordinary year; instead, we may reap only what we would use for a couple of days. He explains those sources that seem to demand a change in the physical acts of the harvest as referring to ways of preparing the produce after it has been cut down—drying it out and so on.

So much, for the time being, for those activities regulated by Torah law. Many of the actions that are connected to agriculture—watering, weeding, and fertilizing are a few examples—are prohibited Rabbinically, but not Biblically. The importance of this distinction is that the consensus of authorities is that in places of specific loss, we would be allowed to perform Rabbinically prohibited activities during shemittah. So, for example, if we needed to treat a tree to get rid of worms, rot, or some such destructive factor, that would be permissible during shemittah because it is originally a Rabbinic prohibition, and refraining from it in this case would lead to the loss of the tree. That is as opposed to an action that we would take to promote the growth of the tree (or the fruit) which would be prohibited.

Nowadays, when the whole practice of shemittah is Rabbinic, some allow even activities that would be prohibited by the Torah if shemittah were de-oraita. We do not accept that view, but shemittah’s
Rabbinic status does allow us to rely on an interestingly lenient position of the Hazon Ish. R. Kook, to provide some background, ruled that the kinds of activities we are allowed to do to prevent loss are only those that protect the Land and its continuing plants, not particular fruit. Since the fruit is hefker, no one can claim that the loss of that fruit would be a loss to them. If the Land were going to sustain permanent damage, however, that would be where the Rabbis permitted some activities. In R. Kook’s view, then, it would be prohibited to water vegetables during shemittah, since their loss would not affect the Land.

Hazon Ish disagreed. R. Rimon cites R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, ztllh"h, who explained that, rather than being hefker (belonging to no one), Hazon Ish saw the produce of shemittah as belonging equally to all Jews. If so, loss of produce is a loss worth taking account of in deciding whether Rabbinic prohibitions should be left in place. R. Rimon concludes that shemittah’s being generally Rabbinic now leaves us room to rely on Hazon Ish’s view.

As a result of this discussion, we can develop some interesting rules about the activities that we mentioned earlier. In terms of watering fields (or gardens, which is more relevant to ordinary people), there is room to actively water grass, although only to the minimal amount needed to prevent them from dying. There is no need to be very strict about what that amount is, but one should nonetheless use it as the standard one is trying to approach. A better solution is to leave a sprinkler system on a timer that was set for the whole year from before shemittah. If one does that, the majority view is that it is permissible to have the timer let the sprinklers fully water the fields as during a regular year. Some worry about issues of mar’it `ayin, that others will think you set the sprinklers during shemittah, but R. Rimon thinks that timers are widespread enough that we do not need to worry about that. If the timer needs to be set during the shemittah year, it would again be preferable to have it only water minimally, although there is more room for leniency here than in other cases.

Fertilizing can generally be done before shemittah and last for the whole year. In cases where there is a need for more fertilizer over the course of the year, it would be necessary to determine the least amount of fertilizer that will prevent the feared damage. As a last example, one can cut plants or grass as long as it is clear that it is being done to make a field or garden look nicer, not for any agricultural need of the plants. R. Rimon therefore permits mowing a lawn during shemittah, although preferably on a regular basis, since as grass grows it can become agricuturally necessary as well.

For people who share a garden with others, R. Rimon recommends urging them to do only that which is permitted during shemittah. Should they refuse to follow those guidelines, he recommends (since gardens are not usually included in the heter mekhirah, which we will discuss in several weeks) informing the co-op that the person does not wish to participate in the gardening costs, and to instead pay a larger portion of some other element of the co-op bill (so that the person does not have any share in the shemittah-prohibited activities). Next week, we will discuss issues of shemittah that affect the running of a Jewish kitchen. Shabbat Shalom.