Clarifying Text: The text reads ('Achas') without a 'Vav' ...

Reason: Since the fiftieth year is not, in fact, the first year of the incoming cycle.

Halachah: The Ri explains that in spite of this statement, the Halachah is like Rebbi Yehudah who says that the fiftieth year belongs to both cycles.

Proof #1: Seeing as the Gemara in the first Perek of Avodah-Zarah (Daf 9: & 10.), in the Sugya of Tana de'Bei Eliyahu, in connection with 'Someone who does not know which year of the Sh'mitah-cycle it is', says that should take two years from each hundred and add them to the remaining years'.

Proof #1 (cont.): In fact, the entire Sugya there goes according to him.

Proof #2: Moreover, we establish our S'tam Mishnah like Rebbi Yishmael, who disagrees with the Rabbanan who argue with Rebbi Yehudah.

Proof #3: Furthermore, according to Rebbi Yishmael, one declares the months Kodesh, and this is how we Pasken throughout Shas.

Support for Proof #3: And furthermore we have Rebbi Yossi, like whom we always Pasken (on account of 'Nimuko imo') who concurs with Rebbi Yishmael, in the first Perek of Kidushin (Daf 40.), when he says that 'Yovel is Meshamet from its inception'.

Support for Proof #3 (cont.): And in Erchin, at the end of 'ha'Makdish Sadeihu' (Daf 28:) it is evident that whoever holds that 'Yovel is Meshamet from its inception' concurs with Rebbi Yishmael who says that 'Yovel takes effect from Rosh ha'Shanah'.

Refutation: This does not appear to be correct however, since the gemara here and in Erchin, Perek ha'Mocher Sadeihu (Daf 36.) 'to preclude from Rebbi Yehudah'.

Rejection #1 of refutation: But what the Gemara says here and in Erchin is not a good proof, since the Gemara in Perek ha'Megaresh (Gitin, Daf 85:) says that 'Rav instituted that one inserts in Gitin "from today and forever" to preclude from Rebbi Yossi, who holds that "the date on a Sh'tar proves when it is valid" ' ...

Rejection #1 of refutation (cont.): Even though Rav himself Paskens like Rebbi Yossi in Yesh Nochlin (Bava Basra, Daf 136.).

Rejection #2 of refutation: And similarly the Gemara says in the first Perek of Kesuvos (Daf 10.) 'To preclude from Raban Shimon ben Gamliel who holds that 'Kesubah is d'Oraysa', even though we Pasken that wherever Raban Shimon ben Gamliel appears in a Mishnah, the Halachah is like him ...

Rejection #2 of refutation (concl.): And this is a S'tam Mishnah in the last Perek of Kesuvos (Daf 110:).

Question: But we need it, according to those who hold at the beginning of Mo'ed Katan (Daf 3.) that 'Plowing in the Sh'mitah is not subject to Malkos' (See Hagahos ha'Bach).

Source: The Gemara says there 'Indeed, pruning is included in planting and harvesting grapes in harvesting crops; so why did the Torah see fit to mention them independently?

Source (cont.): It must e to teach us that one is only Chayav on these Toldos, but not on others.

Question (con.): So we see that even on Toldos, whose Avos are specifically mentioned, one is only Chayav on those that the Torah inserted.

Question (concl.): In that case, the Torah needs to write 'Charishah' to teach us that it is prohibited.

Answer: The main inference is from "Katzir", and since "Katzir" comes to teach us Tosefes, so does Charishah.

Clarification: The Riva explains that it is speaking about harvesting the Sefichim (wild seeds) that produced a third in the Sh'mitah.

Reason: Because as far as what was planted in the Sh'mitah by hand is concerned, we learn it from "Lo Sizra".

Question: The question remains however, that this too, we learn from "Hein Lo Nizra", in Perek Makom she'Nahagu (Pesachim, 51: & 52.). And according to Rabeinu Tam, who forbids Sefichim even before the time of Biy'ur, like that what is planted by hand ...

Question (concl.): And even as regards eating, why do we need two Pesukim?

According to Rashi: According to Rashi however (who permits Sefichim before the time of Biy'ur), this is not a problem.

Answer: We would have thought that with Sefichim, producing a third is not a criterion, and when we forbid them from "Hein Lo Sizra", it refers to the Sefichim that have been picked in the Sh'mitah ...

Answer (cont.): Therefore "be'Charish u'va'Katzir" comes to teach us that it is.

Answer (concl.): Whereas from here ("be'Charish u'va'Katzir), we would have forbidden doing business with the Sefichim, but not eating them; Therefore the Torah writes "be'Charish u'va'Katzir".

Halachah: It is specifically in the regular manner that one is forbidden to harvest, but with a Shinuy (a change from the norm.) it is permitted - even in the Sh'mitah-year.

Source: As we learned in the Toras Kohanim (in B'har), which Darshens from the Pasuk "ve'es Invei Nezirecha Lo Sivtzor" - 'in the normal manner' ...

Source (cont.): 'From here they said that "One may not cut figs with a Muktzah (an implement that is made to cut figs), but one may do so using a regular knife" '.

Halachah (cont.): And when the Toras Kohanim (Ibid.) states that 'One is forbidden to harvest what is guarded, but from what is Hefker is permitted' - that latter too is is forbidden in the normal manner, and is only permitted if one cuts it in an unusual manner ...

Halachah (cont.): Whereas what is guarded is forbidden even if one cuts it in an unusual manner.

Question: And as for the guards of wild seeds, who, the Gemara rules in ha'Bayis ve'ha'Aliyah (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 118.) 'are permitted to take their wages for the Omer and the Sh'tei ha'Lechem' - why are the wild seeds not forbidden since they were guarded?

Question (cont.): Why do we not apply the principle that 'One may only use for Hash-m what is permitted to a Yisrael'?

Answer: Because this was not a proper guarding, seeing as it was not necessary to guard the crops against thieves ...

Answer (cont.): ... since people will automatically keep away from them, knowing that they are needed for the Omer, in which case they were only guarding them against animals, beasts and birds.

Question: Rabeinu Tam asks from the Gemara in the first Perek of Mo'ed Katan (Daf 4.), which rules that 'Ten saplings' is Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai - 'Hilch'sa according to Rebbi Yishmael and Pesukim according to Rebbi Akiva, and since the Halachah comes to permit saplings, automatically fully-grown trees are forbidden (so why do we need a Pasuk according to Rebbi Yishmael)?

Answer #1: And he answers that the question here is from where do we know that Tosefes Shevi'is after the Sh'mitah is forbidden?.

Refutation: His answer however, is unnecessary however, because, seeing as Shevi'is itself we learn from a Halachah, we cannot learn Shabbos and Yom ha'Kipurim from it, since one cannot learn a Kal va'Chomer from a Halachah.

Answer #2: In that case, Rebbi Yishmael needs a Pasuk because of Shabbos and Yom Tov, and he needs the Halachah to permit saplings.

Question: And the reason that the Gemara did not give the same answer in Mo'ed Katan, according to Rebbi Akiva (that he needs the Pasuk to apply it to Shabbos and Yom Kipur) is ...

Answer: Because if the Torah only mentions Sh'mitah in order to apply it to others, then the Torah ought not to have inserted the Limud by Sh'mitah.

Clarification: It comes to include Sh'mitah.

Clarification: Since Rebbi Akiva learns them all, Shabbos Yom-Tov and Yom ha'Kipurim, from Shevi'is ...

Source: Because everyone agrees that Tosfos Yom ha'Kipurim is d'Oraysa, as we say in Perek Sho'el (Shabbos, Daf 148:) and in Perek ha'Meivi (Beitzah, Daf 30.).

Question #1: In Perek Makom she'Nahagu (Pesachim, Daf 54: & 55.) the Gemara wants to say that the ruling that Safek Yom ha'Kipurim is Asur, is speaking about Bein-ha'Shemashos.

Question (cont.): Why is that, seeing as even Vaday daytime, close to nightfall when it comes in and Vaday nighttime when it goes out. On accounts of Tosefes Yom Kipur?

Question #2: And the same Kashya applies in Perek Bameh Madlikin (Shabbos, Daf 34.)?

Answer #1: Perhaps the Gemara establishes it by Bein-ha'Shemashos because Tosfos Shabbos will suffice with a Mashehu.

Answer #2: Moreover, Raban Gamliel in the first Perek of Mo'ed Katan (daf 3:) doesn't hold of Tosefes at all ...

Answer #2 (cont.): As he says there 'They took a count with regard to these two periods (Pesach and Shavu'os), and permitted them'.

Yerushalmi: The Yerushalmi at the beginning of Shevi'is, explains that when they permitted it, they supported the Heter from the Pasuk (in Yisro) "Six days you shall work and accomplish all your work" ...

Yerushalmi (cont.): Because 'Just as by Shabbos Bereishis one is permitted to work until sunset, so too on Erev Sh'mitah is one permitted allowed to work until sunset (of the Sh'mitah)'.

Support: And this reason also appears it the beginning of Mo'ed Katan (Daf 4.), where the Gemara learns Shabbas Shabbason from Shabbos Bereishis ...

Refutation: This is not the upshot of the Sugya however, which concludes that we learn the Isur in the period when the Beis-ha'Mikdash was standing from a Halachah, similar to Nisuch ha'Mayim.

Conclusion: According to that conclusion, it is possible to explain the Halachah according to Rebbi Akiva, whereas the Pesukim speak about a period when the Beis-ha'Mikdash is not standing.

Reservation: It is not possible to say this however, according to Rebbi, who holds that Shevi'is nowadays is mi'de'Rabbanan.

Clarification: As if Hakadosh-Baruch-Hu had instructed him to fast and he did.

Clarification (cont.): Now however, it is certainly forbidden to fast ...

Proof: As the Gemara states in Pesachim in Perek Eilu Devarim (Daf 68:) where Mar b'rei de'Ravina would fast the entire year except for Shavu'os, Purim and Erev Yom Kipur.

Like Rebbi Akiva: And he (Chiya bar Rav from Difti) holds like Rebbi Akiva, because Rebbi Yishmael does not concur with this D'rashah.

Observation: And this explains why the Gemara there does not say that 'Everybody agrees that on Erev Yom Kipur that one also requires "Lachem", as it says with regard to Shavu'os.

Clarification: To be forbidden to plant and to harvest, as the Torah writes (in Vayikra, 25) "Do not plant and do not harvest".

Clarification (cont.): Even though they did not fulfil the Mitzvah of 'Hashmatas Karka' - returning the fields to their owners in the Yovel.

Clarification: This means that we establish the Miy'ut "Hi" with regard to 'the announcement of freedom' that precedes it, but not with regard to blowing the Shofar that precedes the announcement of freedom (Lifnei Fanav) and not with regard to returning the fields that follows it (le'Acharav).

Implied Question: And the reason that one establishes the Ribuy of "Yovel" with regard to both Lifnei Fanav and le'Acharav?

Answer #1: Because that is how one normally Darshens ...

Answer #1 (cont.): Only here the Gemara establishes the Miy'ut "Hi" by the issue that is most logical.

Answer #2: Alternatively, the Ribuy of "Yovel" implies that it comes to include aspect of Yovel (See also Tosfos, Zevachim, Daf 2: DH 'be'Mikra').

Comment: Rebbi Yossi agrees, since he said earlier 'There must be someone somewhere in the world ... '.

Explanation: Perhaps he learns it from a different Pasuk.

Clarification: One bends the branch into the ground, covers it with earth and cuts it in the middle of the bend, so that the branch that now grows at the other end is a slight distance away from the main tree.

Clarification: This refers to grafting one tree into another.

Inferred Halachah: This implies that Mavrich and Markiv are subject to Orlah.

Question: In the first Perek of Orlah (Mishnah 8) it implies that grafting is exempt from Orlah.

Question (cont.): And we learned also in Toras Kohanim that "u'Neta'tem" comes to preclude Marivh and Markiv. 'From here' says the Beraisa, 'the Sipuk of vines, and the Sipuk of their Sipuk which one is Mavrich in the ground is permitted'.

Question (cont.): The Lashon 'Sipuk' by vines is equivalent to Harkavah by trees.

Question (cont.): And what one is Mavrich this year and, when it produces new branches the following year and one is Mavrich again - that is 'Sipuk Sipukan'.

Answer: That speaks where one does not sever it from the original tree, which is still standing.

Answer (cont.): Whereas here it speaks where one severed it from the original tree

Proof: As is evident later (in the first Perek of Orlah) - that one counts from the time it was planted.

Query: One needs to look into the matter as to whether one could give give the same answer in Perek Mashu'ach Milchamah (Sotah, Daf 43:) with regard to someone who returns from the battle-front because of Mavrich, and where the Gemara answers 'One speaks about Harkavas Isur, the other, about Harkavas Heter'.

Halachah by Inference: The Beraisa did not need to add the word 'ba'Shevi'is", seeing as the Reisha mentioned 'Erev Shevi'is'.

Halachah by Inference: And from the fact that it does, we learn that one is permitted to plant even Lechatchilah.

Proof #1: Proof of this appears later when the Gemara establishes it like Rebbi Meir, who says in Perek ha'Nizakin (Gitin, 53:) that someone who plants in the Sh'mitah, whether by mistake or deliberately, must uproot it.

Proof #1 (cont.): As the Gemara explains there - because they are suspect of contravening Shevi'is. If not for that, it would be permitted to retain it, as the Gemara explains there.

Proof #1 (concl.): In that case, if in our Sugya, there would be any Isur, it would not be permitted to retain it.

Proof #2: Later on too (Daf 10:), we learned in a Beraisa that 'One may not plant within thirty days' - implying that within thirty days, one may plant Lechatchilah.

Implied Question: And what we will learn there that 'According to the opinion that holds thirty days, one requires thirty plus thirty'?

Answer: Rabeinu Tam establishes with regard to the Din of Orlah, but not that of Sh'mitah, as Tosfos will explain.

Question: And even though the Gemara says 'that one may retain it', implying that Lechatchilah, one is not allowed to plant (because if one was allowed to plant Lechatchilah, what would be the point of saying that one may retain it?

Answer: Perhaps the Tana in the the Reisha says 'Mutar Lekaymo', since in the Seifa, he wants to say 'Asur Lekaymo'.

Question: The second Perek of Shevi'is (Mishnah 1) which is cited in the first perek of Mo'ed Katan (Daf 3:) states that 'One is permitted to plow in a corn-field up until Pesach, and in a field of trees, until Shavu'os' ...

Question (cont.): Now since one may even plant Lechatchilah thirty days before Rosh ha'Shanah, on what grounds is it forbidden to plow? Why is one not also permitted to plow up until thirty days before Rosh ha'Shanah?

Answer #1: Rabeinu Tam suggests that they were not as strict regarding plowing, since Tosfos Shevi'is of a sapling is confined to plowing, which we learn from a Pasuk from the Pasuk "be'Charish u'veKatzir Tishbos" as we explained earlier (on Amud Alef).

Answer #2: Another possible reason is - because plowing on Erev Sh'mitah is effective vis-a-vis the Sh'mitah.

Implied Question: One cannot however, by the same token, forbid planting on Erev Sh'mitah since the tree will grow in the Sh'mitah-year

Answer: Since all trees grow in the Sh'mitah-year, in which case one should never be allowed to plant.

Yerushalmi: The Yerushalmi gives a different explanation at the beginning of Maseches Shevi'is, where the text reads 'Why until Shavu'os?' And it answers, 'Because until then, it is good for the fruit; whereas from then on, it spoils it'.

Proof: The Beraisa states that as regards both a non fruit bearing tree and a fruit-tree - until them(Shavu'os), it produces thick beams, from then on, the trees strength weakens.

Answer #3: According to this reasoning, the question is answered - because, since plowing is not good for the tree after Shavu'os, it looks as if one is doing so for the needs of Sh'mitah.