According to R. Yochanan it's understood that one may dig pits, caverns and caves (since lashes is only for planting and pruning). But according to R. Elazar, why should one be permitted to dig them? (They should be Rabbinically prohibited since all cultivation of the land is prohibited.)

Question: (It's an even bigger question against R. Yochanan...) Just as we don't use planting and pruning to teach that all cultivation of the Land is prohibited, so the positive commandment of 'and the Land shall rest' prohibits all work on the Land, even if they are not cultivating, meaning that digging pits etc. should also be prohibited...?

(R. Ba Kartignaya): R. Yochanan's source is the pasuk (Vayikra 25:3), "Six years you shall sow your field" - but not in the 7th year; "and six years you shall prune your vineyard" - but not in the 7th year. Any negative commandment that comes from a positive commandment is considered a positive commandment.

Question: (According to R. Yochanan, that one does not transgress a negative commandment by plowing in Sheviis) does one transgress a positive commandment?

Answer: R. Yirmiyah said yes and R. Yosi said no.

Question: Why did the pasuk say "and the Land shall rest a Shabbos to Hash-m"?

Answer: These actions of sowing and pruning are negative commandments and negations of positive commandments, but other actions are neither.

Question: I might have thought that there are lashes for its 'Tosafos' (additions)? (The Gemara will explain the meaning of this.)

(R. Yochanan): This means - lashes for plowing in Sheviis.

(R. Elazar): This means - lashes for the prohibitions of the first two times (referring to the prohibitions of working in a wheat field from Pesach before Sheviis and an orchard from Shavuos before Sheviis).

Some continue the Baraisa with the words, "six years you shall sow your field and six years you shall prune your vineyard". Others have the words, "you shall not sow your field nor shall you prune your vineyard".

The first version is a support for R. Elazar (that one does not incur lashes for the extra prohibited times before Sheviis, as the pasuk implies that he only transgresses during Sheviis itself.) The second version is a support for R. Yochanan, (as the pasuk only lists planting and pruning as prohibitions that incur lashes, but not other forms of work).

Question (Mishnah in Maseches Zevachim against R. Elazar): (There is a prohibition to slaughter and offer up a sacrifice outside of the Temple. The Gemara sources this with the pasuk, (Vayikra 12:13), "Beware, lest you bring up your burnt offerings in any place that you desire" ) 'Beware' is always a negative commandment. And the next pasuk states, "There you shall offer up; there you shall do" The Torah juxtaposes offering up and slaughtering to teach that just as there's a prohibition and positive commandment against offering up outside, so too with slaughtering outside. But if not for this, it would have merely been a positive commandment of 'there you shall offer up; there you shall do'. But according to R. Elazar, there should anyway be a negative commandment (since we do expound when a generalization is written about positive command and the specification is written about a negative command)...?

Answer: The reason the Torah gave this juxtaposition was so that you shouldn't compare it the case of Shabbos - if a person dug a hole, made a furrow and inserted something into ground (in one act of unawareness), he is only liable for one Chatas (since they are all within the same Melacha of plowing) - so too you might say that if a person slaughtered, threw the blood and offered up a sacrifice (outside of the Temple in one act of unawareness), one would only be liable for one Chatas...therefore the Torah gave the juxtaposition to teach separate liability for each act of such a sacrifice.

(R. Zeira/ R. Chiya bar Ashi citing Kahana): One who plants a sapling on Shabbos is liable for the Melacha of sowing.

(R. Zeira): One who prunes is like he is planting (as he increases growth). If one planted and pruned in Sheviis, according to Kahana, he is liable twice; according to R. Zeira, he is only liable once.

Rebuttal: R. Zeira only said that for the laws of Shabbos, one who prunes is like one who plants; but did he say for the laws of Sheviis that planting is like pruning? (For Sheviis, certainly planting is prohibited because of sowing, so one who plants and prunes is liable twice, according to all opinions.)

All derivatives of sowing were included in 'Do not sow your field', so why was pruning mentioned separately? To teach that there is a separate set of lashes for pruning.

Question: Just because pruning was mentioned separately, do we not obligate planting because of sowing?

Rather, whether according to Kahana or R. Zeira, he is liable twice.