If there is a Klal of an Aseh, and a Prat of a Lo Sa'aseh, R. Elazar's teaching shows that this is a Klal u'Ferat (i.e. a Prat that left the Klal to divide);

(R. Elazar): One is lashed for plowing in Shevi'is.

(R. Yochanan): One is not lashed for plowing in Shevi'is.

What is R. Elazar's reason? "V'Shavsah ha'Aretz Shabbos la'Shem'' is a Klal [of working the land]. "Sadcha Lo Sizra v'Karmecha Lo Sizmor'' is a Prat. Seeding and pruning were included in the Klal;

Why did they leave the Klal? It is to equate [the Klal] to them, to teach you that just like seeding and pruning are Avodah in the land and trees, so [one is lashed] only for Avodah in the land and trees.

Question: How does R. Yochanan expound this? (He says that one is not lashed!)

Answer: [Seeding and pruning] are two matters. Two matters that left the Klal do not divide.

Question: Does R. Elazar not hold that [two matters that left the Klal] do not divide?!

Answer: He holds that they do not divide, but they do teach.

Question: Does R. Yochanan not hold that they teach?!

Answer: (Normally, he holds that two matters that left the Klal teach.) Here is different, for the Klal is an Aseh, and the Pratim are a Lo Sa'aseh. An Aseh does not teach about a Lo Sa'aseh, and a Lo Sa'aseh does not teach about an Aseh.

According to R. Elazar, an Aseh does not teach about a Lo Sa'aseh, but a Lo Sa'aseh teaches about an Aseh.

Remark: According to R. Elazar, it is fine (we know) that one may dig round and long pits and caves. (Just like the Lo Sa'aseh teaches about the Aseh for Isur, also for Heter.)

Question: According to R. Yochanan, may one dig round and long pits and caves? Just like [the Lo Sa'aseh] does not teach about [the Aseh for] Isur, it should not teach about Heter!

Answer (R. Ba Kartigana'ah): R. Yochanan learns from "Shesh Shanim Tizra Sadecha'', but not in Shevi'is. "Shesh Shanim Tizmor Karmecha'', but not in Shevi'is. A Lo Sa'aseh that comes due to an Aseh, [it is considered that] one transgresses an Aseh.

(R. Yirmeyah): He transgresses an Aseh.

(R. Yosi): There is not even an Aseh.

Question: [If so,] why does it say "v'Shavsah ha'Aretz Shabbos la'Shem''!

Answer: [This Aseh applies only] to what the Lav applies (seeding and pruning).

(Beraisa) Suggestion: One should be lashed for the addition! (This will be explained.)

Explanation #1 (R. Yochanan): The Beraisa suggests that one should be lashed for plowing in Shemitah. (This is an addition to what is written.)

Explanation #2 (R. Elazar): The Beraisa suggests that one should be lashed for the first two periods (of Tosefes Shemitah in Erev Shemitah. I.e. one may not plow a grain field after Pesach, or a tree field after Shavu'os)

Some teach [that the Beraisa refutes the suggestion through the verse] "Shesh Shanim Tizra Sadecha v'Shesh Shanim Tizmor Karmecha'', and some teach "Sadcha Lo Sizra v'Karmecha Lo Sizmor'';

The one who says "Shesh Shanim Tizra Sadecha v'Shesh Shanim Tizmor Karmecha Shesh Shanim...'' supports R. Elazar (the Torah permits working six full years, including all of Erev Shemitah). The one who says "Sadcha Lo Sizra...'' supports R. Yochanan (there is a Lav only for seeding and pruning. We explained this like SEFER NIR.)

Question (against R. Lazar - Beraisa): "Hishamer'' [lest you offer Olos outside the Mikdash] is a Lav. "Pen'' is a Lav. "Sham Ta'aleh Olosecha v'Sham Ta'aseh'' - "Sham Ta'aleh'' is Ha'alah (putting them on the fire). "V'Sham Ta'aseh'' is Shechitah and Zerikah;

Just like Aliyah, which is [forbidden] due to an Aseh, there is a Lav (Hishamer Pen), also Shechitah and Zerikah, which are [forbidden] due to an Aseh, there is a Lav!

Inference: This is because it is written "Sham Ta'aleh... v'Sham Ta'aseh.'' Had it not written "Sham Ta'aleh v'Sham Ta'aseh'', the Aseh would not teach about the Lav, and the Lav would not teach about the Aseh!

Answer: We should not say like we say about Shabbos - if one dug, made a groove and inserted, he is liable only once [for seeding], similarly if he slaughtered and offered [outside the Mikdash], he is liable only once! Therefore, it needed to say that he is liable for each one.

Wherever we taught Avos [in a Mishnah], they have Toldos;

A Mishnah there teaches four Avos of damagers. 'Ox' is Keren. Goring and pushing are the Av. R. Chiyah taught that biting, crouching and kicking are Toldos of Keren.

Question: A Mishnah there teaches Avos of Tum'ah - a Sheretz and semen. What are Toldos of a Sheretz?

Answer (R. Yudah citing R. Nachum): They are Madafos (lighter Tum'os).

What are Madafos? They are what touched [an Av ha'Tum'ah, i.e. Vlados ha'Tum'ah];

An Av ha'Tum'ah is Metamei everything (even people and Kelim). A Vlad ha'Tum'ah is Metamei only food and drink. Food and drink and a Kli Cheres cannot become an Av ha'Tum'ah to be Metamei [due to] Zivah (even if a Zav sat on them. We explained this like PNEI MEIR.)

Here we taught that there are 39 Avos Melachos. Plowing is an Av. R. Chiyah taught that digging, making a groove and inserting are Toldos of plowing.

All Avos Melachos we learn from the Mishkan. What plowing was in the Mishkan? They plowed to seed ingredients [for Shemen ha'Mishchah and Techeles].

Question: How much must one plow to be liable?

Answer #1 (R. Matanyah): It is enough to plant a leek.

Answer #2 (R. Acha bar Rav): It is enough to plant the pointy end of a wheat kernel.

(Mishnah): [If one was Motzi] two gourd seeds, he is liable. [The Shi'ur for] pumpkin seeds and Mitzri beans is two.

(Beraisa): [The Shi'ur for] wheat of Madai is two.

(R. Shmuel citing R. Ze'ira): Since wheat is cherished, [Chachamim] made it like other garden seeds that are not eaten [to be liable for a Shi'ur worthy to be seeded].

Anything that improves the land, one is liable for it due to plowing.

One who digs, makes a groove, inserts, brings animals to fertilize, digs around vines (PNEI MOSHE), fertilizes, sweeps or sprays water (to prevent dust from rising in the field - MEROMEI SADEH), breaks clumps of earth, cuts small trees in a forest [to promote growth of big trees], ignites densely growing reeds or bad date trees [is liable for plowing];

According to R. Ze'ira, [also] one who makes an irrigation channel [is liable for plowing], for it makes the sides good for seeding;

One who removes rocks, builds tiers [for planting vines - PNEI MEIR], fills in cavities under olive trees, makes cavities under vines (for water), and anything that improves the land, one is liable for it due to plowing.

(R. Chiyah citing R. Yochanan): One who cooks a Neveilah on Yom Tov is not lashed [even though it is not for Yisraelim to eat], for [the Torah] totally permitted cooking on Yom Tov.

(Reish Lakish): He is lashed. Cooking was permitted only for eating.

Question (R. Ba bar Mamal): According to R. Yochanan, one who plows on Yom Tov should not be lashed, for plowing is permitted on Yom Tov [if one wants to slaughter a bird or Chayah, a Mishnah permits to dig to get earth to cover the blood]!

Version #1 (R. Yosi citing R. Ila): Plowing is not permitted [on Yom Tov] in the normal way. (Digging for the sake of earth is not the way people plow. Even R. Yehudah, who obligates Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah, does not consider this to be a Melachah.)

Version #2 (R. Shamai in front of R. Yosah): R. Acha said in the name of R. Ila that [the Mishnah that permits plowing on Yom Tov] is R. Shimon, who says that [one is liable for Melachah] only if it is Tzerichah l'Gufah. (R. Yehudah disagrees.)

Note: The Yerushalmi uses "Yosi'' and "Yosah'' interchangeably. From the following it seems that R. Yosi is the same Amora in both versions.

Question: R. Yosah encountered R. Acha, and said "did you say this?! Didn't R. Yochanan say that R. Meir holds that 24 matters are leniencies of Beis Shamai and stringencies of Beis Hillel, and this is one of them?'' Will you say that there are [only] 23 [if the Mishnah is like R. Shimon, and unlike R. Meir]?!

Answer: Rather, R. Meir and R. Shimon, both of them said one matter (one is exempt for Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah).

Objection: Did not [R. Yochanan, above (2:5)] say that R. Yosi [who says that one is liable for extinguishing only if he desires a singed wick] and R. Shimon said one matter. He should say that R. Meir, R. Yosi and R. Shimon all said one matter!

Counter question (R. Acha): Rather, matters that Rabanan were unsure about, are obvious to you (R. Yosah, the Amora), and what is obvious to Rabanan, you are unsure about them!

If one reaped for the sake of grass, he is liable for reaping, and he is not liable for improving the land;

[Rabanan] need [to ask about] one who reaped to improve the land. Is he liable for reaping and for improving the land [or only for improving? You, R. Yosah, hold that even R. Yehudah holds that this is not considered reaping!]

Answer: You can say that [the question is] according to R. Shimon. (Even though he intended only to improve and does not need the wood, he is pleased with it. Perhaps he is liable for this);

However, according to Rabanan (R. Yehudah, who obligates Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah), in any case he plowed, and in any case he reaped. (Surely he is liable, even if this was not his intent. We explained this like HA'GAON RAV C. KANIEVSKY, SHLITA.)

(R. Mana): Rabanan's words (R. Chiya citing R. Yochanan, below) support R. Yosi;

(R. Chiya citing R. Yochanan): If one squeezed a fish for the sake of the fish (it had too much liquid inside), he is exempt. If it was to extract brine, he is liable. (R. Yochanan holds that even R. Shimon obligates for a Pesik Reishei. We must say that in the Reisha he is exempt because it is not considered squeezing when he does not intend for this, like R. Yosah said.)

And even if you will say that this is only according to R. Shimon, but according to Rabanan (R. Yehudah, he is liable), in any case he squeezed and extracted brine. (We must explain R. Shimon like R. Yosah.)