Conservation Through Torah Text

(1) To not change the open areas of the Levites: Not to change the open areas of the cities of the Levites and their fields - meaning to say, that a city may not be made into an open area, nor an open area into a city, a field into an open area, nor an open area into a field. And the law is the same about an open area (another textual variant: field) into a city and a city into an open area (another textual variant: field) - that one may not change anything about their content. And this matter is well-known, as the Torah commanded (Numbers 35:2-7) that the other tribes cede certain cities to the tribe of Levi; and these are forty-eight cities, with the six cities of refuge that were among them. And it also commanded that there be in these cities a thousand ells of open area - meaning a place open for space and beauty for the city; and two thousand ells beyond that for the sake of fields and vineyards, and this is also of the beauty of the city and from that which it needs, as it is explained in Sotah 27b. And this prevention comes about this, that these matters never be changed. And concerning this it states (Leviticus 25:34), "And the fields of open areas of their cities shall not be sold" - meaning, shall not be changed. As it is not speaking about actual selling, since it is explicitly written in Scripture (Leviticus 25:32), "a perpetual redemption shall there be for the Levites" - which implies that they are permitted to sell them.

(19) When in your war against a city you have to besiege it a long time in order to capture it, you must not destroy its trees, wielding the ax against them. You may eat of them, but you must not cut them down. Are trees of the field human to withdraw before you into the besieged city? (20) Only trees that you know do not yield food may be destroyed; you may cut them down for constructing siegeworks against the city that is waging war on you, until it has been reduced.

MISHNA: One may not raise small domesticated animals, i.e., sheep and goats, in settled areas of Eretz Yisrael, as they graze on people’s crops. But one may raise them in Syria, despite the fact that with regard to many other halakhot Syria is treated like Eretz Yisrael, and in the wilderness of Eretz Yisrael. One may not raise chickens in Jerusalem, due to the sacrificial meat that is common there. There is a concern that chickens will pick up garbage that imparts ritual impurity and bring it into contact with sacrificial meat, thereby rendering it ritually impure. And priests may not raise chickens anywhere in Eretz Yisrael, because of the many foods in a priest’s possession that must be kept ritually pure, e.g., teruma. Furthermore, one may not raise pigs anywhere, and a person may not raise a dog unless it is tied with chains. One may spread out traps [nishovim] for pigeons only if this was performed at a distance of at least thirty ris, which is 8,000 cubits, from any settled area, to ensure that privately owned pigeons are not caught in the traps. GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: One may not raise small domesticated animals, i.e., sheep and goats, in settled areas of Eretz Yisrael. But one may raise them in the forests of Eretz Yisrael. In Syria, it is permitted to do so even in a settled area. And, needless to say, it is permitted to do so outside of Eretz Yisrael. It is taught in another baraita: One may not raise small domesticated animals in settled areas of Eretz Yisrael. But one may raise them in the wilderness that is in Judea and in the wilderness that is on the border near Akko. And even though the Sages said that one may not raise small domesticated animals, nevertheless, one may raise large, domesticated animals, i.e., cattle, because the Sages issue a decree upon the public only if a majority of the public is able to abide by it. This difference is that it is possible for someone to bring small domesticated animals from outside of Eretz Yisrael in the event that they are needed. But it is not possible for someone to bring large, domesticated animals from outside of Eretz Yisrael whenever he needs one, since there is a constant need for them as beasts of burden. Therefore, the Sages did not issue a decree with regard to these types of animals. The baraita continues: And even though they said that one may not raise small domesticated animals, however, one may keep these animals on his premises for thirty days before a pilgrimage Festival,

The baraita continues: And a butcher may buy small domesticated animals and slaughter them, and again buy small domesticated animals and keep them for a while, provided that he does not keep the last one of them that he bought beyond thirty days. His students asked Rabban Gamliel: What is the halakha with regard to raising small domesticated animals in Eretz Yisrael? Rabban Gamliel said to them: It is permitted. The Gemara interrupts its citation of the baraita to pose a question: How could Rabban Gamliel say this? But didn’t we learn in the mishna: One may not raise small domesticated animals in Eretz Yisrael? Rather, the text of the baraita must be emended, and they actually raised this dilemma before him: What is the halakha with regard to keeping them for a while? The Gemara resumes the quotation of the baraita: Rabban Gamliel said to them: It is permitted, provided that the animal does not go out and graze among the flock. Rather, one should tie it to the legs of the bed in his house. The Sages taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving a certain pious man who was groaning, i.e., suffering, due to a pain in his heart. Those caring for the man asked the physicians what to do for him, and they said: There is no other remedy for him but that he should suckle warm milk every morning. And they brought him a she-goat and tied it to the leg of the bed for him, and he would suckle milk from it every morning. Days later, his friends came in to visit him. When they saw that she-goat tied to the legs of the bed, they turned back, saying: There is an armed bandit in this man’s house, and we are going in to visit him? They referred to the goat in this manner because small animals habitually graze on the vegetation of others, thereby stealing their crops. His friends sat down and investigated this pious man’s behavior, and they could not find any sin attributable to him except that sin of keeping that she-goat in his house. That man himself also said at the time of his death: I know for a fact that I have no sin attributable to me except the sin of keeping that she-goat in my house, as I transgressed the statement of my colleagues, the Sages. Rabbi Yishmael said: The members of my father’s family were among the wealthy property holders in the upper Galilee. And for what reason were they destroyed? It was due to the fact that they would graze flocks in the forests, and also because they would judge cases of monetary law by means of a single judge. And even though there were forests close to their houses, and therefore there should have been no problem for them to take their animals to graze in these forests, there was a small, private field and they would convey the animals on a path through it. § The Sages taught in a baraita: If there is a shepherd of small domesticated animals who repented, the court does not obligate him to sell all his animals immediately. Rather, he may sell them gradually. And likewise, in the case of a convert who came into possession of dogs and pigs (see 83a) as part of his inheritance, the court does not obligate him to sell all of them immediately. Rather, he may sell them gradually. And similarly, with regard to one who vowed to purchase a house or to marry a woman in Eretz Yisrael, the court does not obligate him to acquire the first house or marry the first woman he sees immediately upon his arrival in Eretz Yisrael. Instead, he may wait until he finds the house or wife appropriate for him. And there was an incident involving a certain unmarried woman who had a son who was distressing her, and she jumped up and took an oath impulsively: Any man who comes to marry me and will discipline my son, I will not turn him away. And unworthy men jumped at the opportunity to marry her. And when the matter came before the Sages, they said: She need not marry one of these men, as this woman’s intention in her oath was certainly to marry only a man who is appropriate for her. The baraita continues: Just as the Sages said that one may not raise small domesticated animals, i.e., sheep and goats, so too they said that one may not raise small undomesticated animals. Rabbi Yishmael says: One may raise village dogs, cats, monkeys, and genets, because they serve to clean the house of mice and other vermin.

Shmuel would not enter before Rav Asi, as he considered Rav Asi to be greater than he; and Rav Asi would not enter before Rav, as Rav was his teacher. They said: Which of us should stay behind and let the other two come in before him? They decided: Let Shmuel stay behind, and let Rav and Rav Asi come inside in that order. Afterward, Shmuel himself would enter. The Gemara asks: And why didn’t they decide to let Rav or Rav Asi stay behind? The Gemara explains: It was a mere gesture that Rav performed for Shmuel in initially stating that Shmuel should precede him, as Rav did not really feel that Shmuel was superior to him. Rather, on account of that incident in which he inadvertently cursed Shmuel, Rav took upon himself to treat Shmuel with deference. In the meantime, while all this was going on, a cat [shunara] came and severed the hand of the baby. Rav emerged from the house and taught: With regard to a cat, it is permitted to kill it even if it is privately owned; and it is prohibited to maintain it in one’s possession; and it is not subject to the prohibition against theft if one takes it from its owner; and, in the case of a lost cat, it is not subject to the obligation of returning a lost item to its owner. The Gemara asks a question with regard to Rav’s statement: And since you said that it is permitted to kill it, what is the need to state further that it is prohibited to maintain it in one’s possession? If a cat is considered such a dangerous animal that it is permitted to kill it, of course one cannot keep it in his possession. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that although Rav ruled that it is permitted to kill it, he concedes that there is no prohibition in keeping it, Rav therefore teaches us that it is also prohibited to keep it in one’s possession. The Sages say, further questioning Rav’s statement: And since you said that it is not subject to the prohibition against theft if one takes it from its owner, what is the need to state further that it is not subject to the obligation of returning a lost item to its owner in the case of a lost cat? If one may actively steal a cat, certainly there is no obligation to return it when found. Ravina said in response: Rav was referring to its hide. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita against Rav’s ruling that it is prohibited to keep a cat. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: One may raise village dogs, cats, monkeys, and genets, because they serve to clean the house of mice and other vermin. The Gemara resolves the apparent contradiction: It is not difficult. This ruling in the baraita is stated with regard to a black cat, which is harmless, whereas that ruling of Rav is stated with regard to a white cat, which is dangerous. The Gemara raises a difficulty against this answer: But in the incident of Rav it was a black cat. Since this cat severed the baby’s hand, it was obviously a vicious, dangerous animal. The Gemara answers: There it was a black cat, but it was the offspring of a white one. The offspring of a white cat is dangerous, even if it itself is black. The Gemara further objects: But didn’t Ravina raise this very issue as a dilemma? As Ravina raised a dilemma: What is the halakha with regard to a black cat that is the offspring of a white one? Is it also dangerous like its parent?

he Gemara answers: When Ravina raised the dilemma, it was with regard to a black cat that is the offspring of a white cat that itself is the offspring of a black cat. By contrast, in the incident with Rav it was a black cat that was the offspring of a white one, which was itself the offspring of a white cat. That animal is definitely dangerous. § The Gemara provides a mnemonic device for the distinguishing letters in the various names of the sons of Rav Pappa in the ensuing list: Ḥet beit dalet, beit yod ḥet, beit ḥet nun. Rabbi Aḥa bar Pappa says the following three statements in the name of Rabbi Abba bar Pappa, who said them in the name of Rabbi Adda bar Pappa. And some say Rabbi Abba bar Pappa says them in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Pappa, who said them in the name of Rabbi Aḥa bar Pappa. And some say Rabbi Abba bar Pappa says them in the name of Rabbi Aḥa bar Pappa, who said them in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa. The three statements are as follows: The court sounds the alarm on Shabbat over a breakout of sores; and a door that is locked will not be opened quickly; and with regard to one who purchases a house in Eretz Yisrael, one writes a bill of sale for this transaction even on Shabbat.

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: After explaining how the public engages in prayer when there is a drought, the baraita teaches: And with regard to all other types of calamities that break out upon the community, other than drought, such as sores, a plague of locusts, flies, hornets, or mosquitoes, or infestations of snakes or scorpions, the court would not sound the alarm on Shabbat, but the people would cry out. This indicates that it is not proper to sound the alarm on Shabbat for an epidemic of sores. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here it is referring to moist sores; whereas there it is referring to dry sores, which are more dangerous than moist ones.

The conditions are that people shall have the right to graze their animals in forests, even on private property; and that they shall have the right to gather wood from each other’s fields, to be used as animal fodder; and that they shall have the right to gather wild vegetation for animal fodder in any place except for a field of fenugreek; and that they shall have the right to pluck off a shoot anywhere for propagation and planting, except for olive shoots; and that the people of the city shall have the right to take supplies of water from a spring on private property, even from a spring that emerges for the first time; and that they shall have the right to fish in the Sea of Tiberias, i.e., the Sea of Galilee, provided that the fisherman does not build an underwater fence to catch fish, thereby causing an impediment to boats. The baraita continues the list of Joshua’s ten conditions: And people shall have the right to relieve themselves outdoors behind a fence, even in a field that is full of saffron [karkom]; and they shall have the right to walk in permitted paths, i.e., those paths that cut through a private field, throughout the summer until the second rainfall, when crops begin to sprout; and they shall have the right to veer off to the sides of the roads onto private property because of hard protrusions [yeteidot] of the road; and one who becomes lost among the vineyards shall have the right to cut down branches and enter an area of the vineyard, or cut down branches and exit an area of the vineyard, until he finds his way back to the road; and that a corpse with no one to bury it [met mitzva] acquires its place and is buried where it was found. The first condition mentioned in the baraita is that people shall have the right to graze their animals in forests. Rav Pappa said: We said this only with regard to small domesticated animals, i.e., sheep or goats, that graze in a forest of large trees. Small animals grazing in a forest of this kind would not destroy it. But in the case of small animals grazing in a forest with small growth, or large animals, e.g., oxen, grazing in a forest of large trees, these practices are not permitted, as in either of these scenarios the practice would destroy the forest. And, all the more so, it is understood that large animals grazing in a forest with small growth is not permitted. The Gemara discusses the next condition mentioned in the baraita: And that they shall have the right to gather wood from each other’s fields, to be used as animal fodder. The Gemara comments: We said this only with regard to twigs of thorns and shrubs, as the field’s owner does not care about these. But with regard to other types of wood, it is not permitted. And even with regard to twigs of thorns and shrubs, we said this only when they are attached to the ground. But when they have been detached by the owner it is not permitted, as he has already claimed them for himself. And even when they are attached we said this only when the twigs are still moist, but when they are completely dry it is not permitted, as the owner requires these for firewood. Moreover, it is permitted only provided that one does not uproot the thorn bush or shrub from the ground, but it is prohibited to pull them out with their roots. The Gemara further discusses Joshua’s conditions: And that they shall have the right to gather wild vegetation for animal fodder in any place except for a field of fenugreek. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that wild vegetation is good for fenugreek, and therefore the owner wants it to be left in his field? The Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna that deals with diverse kinds (Kilayim 2:5): With regard to fenugreek that sprouted alongside various types of wild vegetation, one is not required to uproot the vegetation. Although it is generally prohibited to grow different species of vegetables together in one patch, if the species have a negative impact on each other’s growth, it is not prohibited. In this case the wild vegetation may be left alongside the fenugreek because it is harmful to it, and the halakhot of diverse kinds do not apply in a case of this kind.

but not from a place that faces the sun, where the fruits grow copiously, as it is stated: “And for the precious things of the fruits of the sun” (Deuteronomy 33:14). The baraita further states: And the people of the city shall have the right to take supplies of water from a spring on private property, even from a spring that emerges for the first time. Rabba bar Rav Huna says: And although one may draw water from that spring, he must give money to reimburse the owner of the property. The Gemara concludes: But the halakha is not in accordance with his opinion, as the water may be taken without payment. The next of Joshua’s conditions is: And that they shall have the right to fish in the Sea of Tiberias, provided that the fisherman does not build an underwater fence to catch fish, thereby causing an impediment to boats. The Gemara comments: But one may fish with nets and with traps. The Sages taught in a baraita: Initially, the tribes stipulated with each other that one may not build an underwater fence to catch fish, thereby causing an impediment to boats, but one may fish with nets and with traps. The Sages taught in a baraita: The Sea of Tiberias was located in the portion of the tribe of Naphtali. Moreover, the tribe of Naphtali received in addition a small stretch of land equal to the full length of the rope of a fish trap. This stretch of land was located to the south of the sea, where the members of this tribe could spread out their fishing nets, to fulfill that which is stated: “And of Naphtali he said: O Naphtali, satisfied with favor, and full with the blessing of the Lord; possess the sea and the south” (Deuteronomy 33:23). It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Detached items that are found in the mountains at the time of conquest are considered to be in the possession of all the tribes equally, as spoils of war; but that which is attached, e.g., trees, are considered to be in the sole possession of that tribe that would receive the land where the tree was found. The baraita adds: And you do not have a single tribe of Israel that did not have in its portion at least some land in the mountains, and some in the lowland, and some in the countryside, and some in the valley, as it is stated: “Turn and take your journey, and go to the hill-country of the Amorites and to all their neighbors, in the Arabah, in the hill-country, and in the lowland, and in the countryside, and by the seashore” (Deuteronomy 1:7). And you find similarly with regard to the Canaanites and Perizzites and Amorites who inhabited the land before the Jews, as it stated in the above verse: “The Amorites and to all their neighbors.” Apparently, the Amorites and their neighbors all had this variety of types of land in their respective territories. § The Gemara discusses the next of Joshua’s conditions: And people shall have the right to relieve themselves outdoors behind a fence, even in a field that is full of saffron. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: It goes without saying that one may relieve himself when necessary; this stipulation is necessary only to permit the one relieving himself to take a stone out of a wall in the field with which to clean himself. Rav Ḥisda said: And it is permitted to remove a stone from a wall for this purpose even on Shabbat. Mar Zutra the Pious would take a stone in this manner on Shabbat and replace it in the wall, and say to his attendant after Shabbat: Go and plaster it over, so that it would fit securely back in the wall. The baraita further states: And they shall have the right to walk in permitted paths, i.e., those paths that cut through a private field, throughout the summer until the second rainfall, when crops begin to sprout. Rav Pappa said: And with regard to these fields that we have in Babylonia, even dew that settled the previous night is bad for them. Even after a night of dew, the field is sufficiently moistened that trampling on it will cause damage, and therefore this condition does not apply if there was dew the previous night. The next item on the list of conditions is: And they shall have the right to veer off to the sides of the roads onto private property because of hard protrusions of the road. The Gemara relates: Shmuel and Rav Yehuda, who lived in Babylonia, were once walking along the road, and Shmuel veered off to the sides of the road onto private property. Rav Yehuda said to him: Do the conditions that Joshua stipulated apply even in Babylonia? Shmuel said to him: Indeed so, as I say that they apply even outside of Eretz Yisrael. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Ḥiyya were once walking along the road, and they veered off to the sides of the road. Rabbi Yehuda ben Kanosa was taking broad steps on the road, to avoid the protrusions without going off to the side of the road, while walking in front of them. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to Rabbi Ḥiyya: Who is this man who is showing off his supposed greatness in our presence? By acting more stringently than required by halakha, he is displaying insolence. Rabbi Ḥiyya said to Rabbi Yehuda: Perhaps it is my student Rabbi Yehuda ben Kanosa. And if so, all of his actions are undertaken for the sake of Heaven; he is not acting out of haughtiness. When they reached him and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi saw him, he said to him: If you were not Yehuda ben Kanosa I would have cut off your legs with iron shears, i.e., I would have excommunicated you for your impudence. The baraita further teaches: And one who becomes lost among the vineyards shall have the right to cut down [mefaseig] branches and enter an area of the vineyard, or cut down branches and exit an area of the vineyard, until he finds his way back to the road. The Sages taught in a baraita that this stipulation extends further: With regard to one who sees another person lost among the vineyards, he may cut down branches and enter an area of the vineyard, or cut down branches and exit an area of the vineyard until he reaches him and brings him back up to the city or to the road. And similarly, if he himself is the one who is lost among the vineyards, he may cut down branches and enter an area of the vineyard, or cut down branches and exit an area of the vineyard until he comes back up to the city or to the road. The Gemara asks a question with regard to this baraita: What is the point of the clause that begins with: And similarly? It is obvious that a lost individual himself has the same right to cut down branches as one who assists him to find his way out. The Gemara answers: That is taught lest you say that it is only another person who is permitted to cut down branches, as, having seen the lost party, he knows exactly where he is going to rescue the other and help him leave the vineyard, and that is why he may cut down branches; but with regard to the lost person himself, who does not know where he is going, one might have said that he may not cut down branches but must go all the way back to the boundary of the vineyard. The baraita therefore teaches us that one who is lost may cut down branches in his quest to find his own way to the nearby town or road. The Gemara asks a further question: Why was it necessary for Joshua to stipulate that one may find his way out in this manner? After all, this halakha applies by Torah law. When one is lost, whoever can assist in helping him find his way must do so by Torah law, as it is taught in a baraita: There is a mitzva to return lost items to their owner. From where is it derived that the requirement applies even to returning his body, i.e., helping a lost person find his way? The verse states: “And you shall restore it to him” (Deuteronomy 22:2), which can also be translated as: And you shall restore himself to him. If this is required by Torah law, why did Joshua stipulate a condition to this effect? The Gemara answers: By Torah law one is required only to walk in a roundabout path along the boundaries, without damaging another’s vines by cutting off branches. Joshua came and instituted the stipulation that one may go even further and cut off branches and ascend or cut off branches and descend, thereby leaving through the most direct route. The Gemara addresses the last stipulation in the baraita: And that a corpse with no one to bury it [met mitzva] acquires its place and is buried where it was found. The Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: One who finds a corpse laid out on a main street [isratya] evacuates it for burial either to the right of the street or to the left of the street, but it may not be buried under the main street itself. If one can move the corpse either to a fallow field or to a plowed field, he evacuates it to the fallow field. If the choice is between a plowed field and a sown field, he evacuates it to the plowed field. If both fields were fallow, or if both were plowed, or if both were sown, he evacuates it to any side where he wishes to move it.