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,