a quarter-kav or more of seeds of a different type, i.e., one twenty-fourth of the mixture is a type of seed other than the main type, one must reduce the other type of seeds in the mixture by uprooting the shoots.

With regard to the halakha that inspectors must go out and uproot the shoots of diverse kinds of seeds that grew in the fields, the Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that the Sages ordained that they should pronounce the crop of the entire field in which diverse kinds was found ownerless, rather than uprooting the diverse kinds? The Gemara responds: This is not difficult. Here, in the mishna, where it says that the inspectors go out and uproot the diverse kinds, it is referring to the time before the institution of the new ordinance; there, in the baraita, where it says that the entire field is pronounced ownerless, it is referring to the time after the institution of that ordinance.

The Gemara explains this ordinance as it is taught in another baraita: At first, the agents of the court would uproot the diverse kinds and cast them before the livestock belonging to the owners of the fields. However, the property holders would rejoice for two reasons: One, that the agents of the court weeded their fields for them when they uprooted the plants of the other type; and another one, that they cast the diverse kinds before their livestock, thereby saving them from having to feed them. Accordingly, the field owners took no steps to keep their fields free of diverse kinds of seeds.

The Sages, therefore, ordained that the agents of the court should uproot the diverse kinds and cast them on the roads. Yet the property holders would still greatly rejoice that the agents of the court weeded their fields free of charge. Finally, the Sages ordained that they should pronounce the crop of the entire field in which diverse kinds was found ownerless.

MISHNA: Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: In a field that is filled with trees, one may draw water via channels from one tree to another tree on the intermediate days of a Festival because trees are in dire need of water. And this is permitted provided that in doing so he does not water the entire field. With regard to plants that were not watered prior to the Festival, one may not water them on the intermediate days of the Festival because they do not need the water. But the Rabbis permit watering in this case, i.e., trees, and that case, i.e., plants.

GEMARA: Rav Yehuda said: If the field was moist [metunenet] before the Festival but in the meantime it dried up, it is permitted to water the entire field even according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov. That ruling is also taught in a baraita: When they said that it is prohibited to water them on the intermediate days of a Festival, they said this only with regard to plants that were not watered at all before the Festival. However, with regard to plants that were already watered before the Festival and had begun to grow, it is permitted to water them on the intermediate days of the Festival because failure to water them would lead to substantial financial loss.

And if the field was moist before the Festival, it is permitted to water it even if the field had not been watered prior to the Festival. And one may not water a dry field on the intermediate days of a Festival. But the Rabbis permit watering this and that, i.e., plants that were not watered before the Festival and a dry field.

Ravina said: Learn from here that one is permitted to sprinkle a garden [tarbitza] with water on the intermediate days of a Festival. Ravina explains how he arrived at this conclusion: What is the reason that the Rabbis permit one to water a dry field despite the fact that the plants will not die from a lack of moisture? This is because watering the field in advance turns a late crop into an early crop. It can be understood from this that the late ripening of a crop is considered a substantial financial loss that serves as a reason to permit labor that would otherwise be prohibited on the intermediate days of a Festival. Here too, in the case of a garden, sprinkling it with water turns a late crop into an early crop, and so it is permitted on the intermediate days of a Festival.

The Sages taught the following baraita: One may sprinkle water in a field of grain during the Sabbatical Year, but not on the intermediate days of a Festival.

The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in another baraita: One may sprinkle water in a field of grain both on the intermediate days of a Festival and during the Sabbatical Year? Rav Huna said: This is not difficult. This baraita that prohibits sprinkling water in a field of grain on the intermediate days of a Festival is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, who prohibits watering an entire field. That baraita that permits it is in accordance with the more lenient opinion of the Rabbis.

It is taught in another baraita: One may sprinkle water in a white field on the eve of the Sabbatical Year so that vegetables will sprout during the Sabbatical Year; and not only that, but one may sprinkle water in a field of grain even during the Sabbatical Year itself, so that vegetables will sprout upon the conclusion of the Sabbatical Year. Since sprinkling water is not regarded as full-fledged agricultural labor, it is permitted as long as the sprinkling and the sprouting of the vegetables do not both occur during the Sabbatical Year itself.

MISHNA: One may trap moles [ishut] and mice in an orchard and in a field of grain in his usual manner, i.e., as he would trap them all year round, both on the intermediate days of a Festival and during the Sabbatical Year. But the Rabbis say: In an orchard he may trap them in his usual manner, but in a field of grain, where there is no danger of substantial financial loss, he may only trap them in a way that is not his usual manner.

And one may seal a breach in the wall of his garden on the intermediate days of a Festival, and during the Sabbatical Year one may even build a wall in his usual manner, as this is not considered an agricultural labor. Consequently, despite the fact that this benefits the garden by offering it protection, it is not prohibited during the Sabbatical Year.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is meant by the term ishut? Rav Yehuda said: An ishut is a creature that has no eyes, a rodent that digs holes in the ground and can cause damage to roots and vegetables. Rava bar Yishmael said, and some say that it was Rav Yeimar bar Shelamya who said: What is the verse that indicates the identity of the ishut? “As a snail that melts and disappears; like the fall of a young mole [eshet] that has not seen the sun” (Psalms 58:9). It is understood that this creature has not seen the sun because it does not have eyes.

The Gemara expands upon the halakha recorded in the mishna. The Sages taught the following baraita: One may trap moles and mice in a field of grain and in an orchard in his usual manner, and one may destroy ant holes so that the ants will cause no damage. How does one destroy ant holes? Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One brings soil from this ant hole and places it in that ant hole, and since the ants from the two nests are not familiar with each other, they strangle each other.

Rav Yeimar bar Shelamya said in the name of Abaye: And this advice works only in certain circumstances: When the ant holes are located on two opposite sides of a river, when there is no bridge connecting the two sides, when there is not even a plank bridge over the water, and when there is not even a rope stretched taut across the river. If there is any connection whatsoever between the two sides of the river, the ants from the two nests are likely to recognize each other and not fight.