Q&A: Whether to Bend or to Twist
Whether to Bend or to Twist
Question
Hello Rabbi Michi!
The Talmud in tractate Sanhedrin brings the story of Resh Lakish, who sees people plowing and pruning in the seventh year.
The Talmud discusses what the first part of the story was — whether they saw the one plowing or the one pruning first.
And the claim is that the story is in reverse, because if the order were as it appears in the Talmud, they could have made to Resh Lakish that same argument of agiston. I don’t really understand the difficulty, and I also don’t understand the answer. I’d be happy for some help.
Best regards, Noam
Answer
In the future, please cite the source. Sanhedrin 26a.
I didn’t understand what the problem is. If the case of the one plowing was first and their explanation was that it was agiston, then in the second case too they could have said agiston. The agiston explanation applies in both cases. But if the one pruning was first, and there their explanation was that he was making a hoop for the olive press, that explanation does not apply to plowing, and so they explained that it was agiston.
Discussion on Answer
That’s not what is written in the plain sense of the Talmud. In the Talmud it seems to say that the explanation given for the second case does not apply to the first, while the one for the first does apply to the second. It doesn’t say that there is a hierarchy of bigger novelties.
I thought maybe one could say that agiston is a bigger novelty from the standpoint of the Sages, who judge a person committing a transgression favorably. Meaning, in the case of the one pruning, it’s plausible that he’s making a hoop. To claim that it’s land belonging to a non-Jew is already a much more generous judgment. That also fits with the continuation of the story, where Resh Lakish attacks the Sages afterward and thinks they are belittling the Sabbatical year. Probably the Torah-fury of a penitent. What does the Rabbi think?