בין הפרטי וציבורי- מה שלי ומה שלנו? לימוד לקראת השמיטה
User Profile Picture
Byשמיטה ישראלית
Collection Logo
שמיטה ישראלית

דף לימוד זה דן ביחס שבין הפרטי והציבורי, רשות הרבים ונחלת הכלל. הלימוד צומח מתוך השמיטה

מהלך הלימוד:
פתיחה במליאה- מה אנחנו נוטעים למען הדורות הבאים?
לימוד בחברותות או במליאה
סיכום משותף

הלימוד מיועד לצעירים ומבוגרים ללא רקע קודם

כתיבה: עינט קרמר

מדרש תנחומא, קדושים ח׳

(א) כִּי תָּבֹאוּ אֶל הָאָרֶץ וּנְטַעְתֶּם. אָמַר לָהֶם הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁתִּמְצְאוּ אוֹתָהּ מְלֵאָה כָּל טוּב, לֹא תֹּאמְרוּ נֵשֵׁב וְלֹא נִטַּע, אֶלָּא הֱווּ זְהִירִין בִּנְטִיעוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וּנְטַעְתֶּם כָּל עֵץ מַאֲכָל. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁנִּכְנַסְתֶּם וּמְצָאתֶם נְטִיעוֹת שֶׁנָּטְעוּ אֲחֵרִים, אַף אַתֶּם הֱיוּ נוֹטְעִים לִבְנֵיכֶם. שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמַר אָדָם, אֲנִי זָקֵן, כַּמָּה שָׁנִים אֲנִי חַי, מָה אֲנִי עוֹמֵד מִתְיַגֵּעַ לַאֲחֵרִים, לְמָחָר אֲנִי מֵת.

Midrash Tanchuma, Kedoshim 8

(1) (Lev. 19:23:) “When you come into the land and plant.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel, Even though you find it (i.e., the land) full of all bounty, you shall not say, ‘Let us settle down and not plant.’ Rather, be careful in planting, as stated (ibid., cont.), ‘and plant any tree for food.’ Just as you came in and found plantings which others had planted, so you shall plant for your children, lest someone say, ‘Since I am old and tomorrow I shall die, why should I toil for others.’” Solomon said (in Eccl. 3:11), “He has made everything beautiful in its time; He also has put eternity into their heart.” “Hidden ('lm)” is what is written (without the w of the normal spelling, i.e., 'wlm, eternity). Why? If the Holy One, blessed be He, had not hidden (rt.: 'lm) the day of [one's] death from people, a person would neither build nor plant; for he would have said, “Tomorrow I shall die. Why should I persist in toiling for the sake of others?” The Holy One, blessed be He, therefore, hid death from (rt.: 'lm) human hearts, so that one would build and plant. [If] he is worthy, [it will be] for himself; [if] unworthy, [it will be] for others. There is a story about the emperor Hadrian; that he was going to war and traveling with his troops to fight with a certain country for having rebelled against him. Now he found a certain old man who was planting fig saplings. Hadrian said to him, “You are an old man. [Why are you] persisting in taking the trouble to toil for others?” He said to Hadrian, “My lord king, here I am planting. If I am worthy, I shall eat of the fruit of my saplings; but if not, my children will eat.” [Hadrian] spent three years at war, and after three years he returned. What did that old man do? He took a fruit basket, filled it with the firstfruits of beautiful figs, and drew near to Hadrian. He said to him, “My lord king, take these figs, for I am the same old man whom you found when you were on your way [to the war] when you said, ‘You are an old man; why are you taking the trouble to toil for others?’ See, the Holy One, blessed be He, has already found me worthy to eat some fruit from my saplings. Now this [fruit] in my fruit basket is your portion from those [saplings].” Hadrian said to his servants, “Take it from him and fill it with gold coins.” And so they did. The old man took the fruit basket full of gold coins and began to go about his house, boasting to his wife and children. So he told them the story. Now a woman neighbor of his was there. She heard what the old man had said. She said to her husband, “When all the people go [through life], the Holy One, blessed be He, gives to them and prepares bounty for them. But you dwell in your dark house in the gloom. See, our [neighbor] honored the emperor with a fruit basket of figs; and he filled it with gold coins for him. Now you get up, take a large basket, and fill it with varieties of choice fruit, with apples, figs, and the other varieties of beautiful fruit, since he loves them a lot. Go and honor him with them. Perhaps he will fill it with gold for you, as he did for our old neighbor.” He went and heeded his wife. So he took a large basket, filled it with apples and figs, and loaded it on his shoulder. Then he approached the emperor on a side road and said to him, “My lord king, I heard that you love fruit, I have come to honor you with figs and apples.” The emperor said to his officers, “Take the basket and hit him on his face.” And so they did. They hit him on his face until his face swelled up; stripped him naked; smashed his eyes; and made an example of him. So he went home, as one of whom an example had been made, and crying. Now she (i.e., his wife) thought that he was coming with a basket full of gold coins. So when she saw him with his face swollen and with his body shattered and beaten, she said to him, “What is the matter with you?” He said to her, “When I heeded you and went to honor him with this gift, they hit me on my face. If I had listened to you and put varieties of hard fruit in the basket, they would already have pelted my face and my whole body with them.” And why all this? In order to teach you that evil women destroy their husbands with evil [counsel]. Therefore one should not cease from planting. Rather, just as he found, one should still continue to plant even though he is old. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel, “Learn from Me. Do I need [fruits], as it were?” [And yet] it states (Gen. 2:8), “And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east.”

המדרש מציג את התפיסה שבה לכל אדם יש אחריות גם לדורות הבאים. אחת מהדרישות היא לנטוע ולא להיות שאננים שכן אנו נמצאים בארץ המובטחת. על האדם יש אחריות לטפל ולדאוג לאדמה, להשתתף בבניית הארץ ולדאוג לעצים של הדורות הבאים.

הרחבה: מהי קיימות
מושג הקיימות מתייחס להיבטים המשפיעים על סיכויי ההשרדות וההמשכיות של המין האנושי, וכפועל יוצא מזה, או כערך בפני עצמו, גם דאגה עמוקה למערכות סביבתיות והחברתיות שתומכות בהמשכיות זו. מסיבה זו קיימות עוסקת בכל תחומי החיים של המין האנושי. הקיימות מנסה לעודד עיצוב של הטכנולוגיה ושל החברה כך שבני האדם יוכלו למלא את צרכיהם ולהגשים את הפוטנציאל המירבי שלהם, תוך שמירה על המערכת האקולוגית, מגוון המינים והיכולת לקיים אידאלים אלו במשך תקופה ארוכה מאוד. קיימות משפיעה על כל רמה ורמה של ארגון חברתי או עיצוב טכנולוגי - מרמת היחיד, עבור בקהילות ושכונות וכלה בעולם כולו. (מתוך אקו-ויקי)

חלק ב- בין רכוש פרטי ונחלת הכלל

הקדמה לתקנות יהושע בן נון
"עשרה התנאים" שהגמרא מייחסת ליהושע בן נון עוסקים בעיקר בשינוי הדרמטי המתחולל בחיי העם במעבר משנים של שהייה במדבר אל אתגרי ריבונות והישרדות כלכלית בארצו. קיים חשש אמיתי שדווקא צרכי פרנסה מעיקים ובניין נחלות, כל אחד במשפחתו ובשבטו, יביאו לפירוד בין מי ששכן עד עתה במחנה אחד סביב משכן ה'. "תקנות יהושע" קובעות שיחד עם חלוקת הארץ לנחלות פרטיות יש חובה לשמור על יסוד השותפות הבסיסית של העם הנחלת הכלל שבארץ המיוחלת.
(הרב דב ברקוביץ, הדף היומי, מסכת בבא קמא – דף פ"א, מוסף שבת מקור ראשון יז' אדר תשס"ט)

בבא קמא פ״א

תנו רבנן: עשרה תנאים התנה יהושע:

א. שיהו מרעין בחורשין

ב. ומלקטין עצים בשדותיהם

ג. ומלקטים עשבים בכל מקום חוץ מתלתן וקוטמים נטיעות בכל מקום חוץ מגרופיות של זית

ד. ומעין היוצא בתחילה (מחדש) בני העיר מסתפקין ממנו

ה. ומחכין (מטילין חכה לצוד דגים) בימה של טבריא ובלבד שלא יפרוס קלע ויעמיד את הספינה

ו. ונפנין לאחורי הגדר ואפילו בשדה מליאה כרכום

ז. ומהלכים בשבילי הרשות עד שתרד רביעה שניה

ח. ומסתלקין לצידי הדרכים מפני יתידות הדרכים

ט. והתועה בין הכרמים מפסיג ועולה מפסיג ויורד

י. ומת מצוה קונה מקומו:

Bava Kamma 81
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. Rav Yirmeya said: This is not difficult. Here, the mishna is referring to a case where the fenugreek was planted for its seeds; there, the baraita that lists Joshua’s conditions is referring to fenugreek planted for its stalks. When it is planted for its seeds, wild vegetation is bad for it, as it weakens the fenugreek and lowers its yield. But when it is planted for its stalks, wild vegetation is good for it, as when it is situated among vegetation it climbs on it and thereby grows to a larger size. If you wish, say instead another answer: Here, the mishna is referring to a case where the fenugreek was planted for human consumption; and there, the baraita is referring to fenugreek planted for animal consumption. Since the owner sowed the fenugreek for animal consumption, the wild vegetation is also required by him, as this too can be used for animal fodder. And how can we know if a particular fenugreek field was planted for human or animal consumption, and thereby know whether the vegetation may be picked and taken? Rav Pappa said: If he planted it in rows [mesharei], it is for human consumption; if he did not plant in rows but planted haphazardly, it is for animal consumption. The baraita teaches: And that they shall have the right to pluck off a shoot anywhere for propagation and planting, except for olive shoots, as this would cause damage to the olive tree. Rabbi Tanḥum and Rabbi Berayes explained this in the name of a certain elder: With regard to olive trees, one must leave a shoot the size of an egg on the trunk when detaching it from the trunk; in the case of reeds and grape vines, he may take shoots only from the place of the first knot and above. And with regard to all other trees, shoots may be taken only from the thick part of the tree, where there are many branches growing, but not from the thin part of the tree. Furthermore, one may take from a new branch, which does not yet produce fruit, but not from old branches, which do produce fruit; and one may take from a place that does not face the sun, 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 HaNasi: 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. According to this baraita, a met mitzva is not necessarily buried where it is found. It may be moved elsewhere. Rav Beivai said: The ruling of this baraita is stated with regard to a corpse laid out on the pathway. Were the corpse buried there, it would prohibit passage by priests. Since permission was already granted to evacuate it from there, one may evacuate it to any place he wishes. If, however, the corpse was in a field, it would be prohibited to move it. § The Gemara returns to the opening statement of the baraita, that Joshua stipulated ten conditions. The Gemara says: Are there really only ten? These conditions enumerated in the baraita are actually eleven. The Gemara answers: The condition that one may walk in permitted paths that cut through a private field in the summer was not instituted by Joshua; rather, King Solomon said it. As it is taught in a baraita: If one’s produce was completely harvested from the field, but he does not allow people to enter into his field to shorten their route, what do people say about him? They say: What benefit does so-and-so have by denying entry into his field? And what harm are people causing him by traversing his field? Concerning him, the verse says: Do not be called wicked by refraining from being good. The Gemara asks: Is it really written: Do not be called wicked by refraining from being good? There is no such verse in the Bible. The Gemara answers: Yes, an idea like this is found in the Bible, albeit in a slightly different form, as it is written like this: “Withhold not good from him to whom it is due, when it is in the power of your hand to do it” (Proverbs 3:27). The Gemara further questions the statement of the baraita that Joshua instituted ten stipulations: And is there nothing more that Joshua instituted? But there is also the stipulation mentioned by Rabbi Yehuda. As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: During the time of manure removal, a person may remove his manure from his property into the public thoroughfare and pile it up there for a full thirty days, so that it should be trodden by the feet of people and by the feet of animals, thereby improving its quality, as it was on this condition that Joshua apportioned Eretz Yisrael to the Jewish people. The Gemara continues this line of questioning: And furthermore, there are the stipulations mentioned by Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, says: It is a stipulation of the court, i.e., it is an automatic right even when not explicitly granted, that this owner of a bee colony may enter the field of another and chop off the other’s branch in order to save his bee colony, and afterward he gives him the value of the other’s severed branch. That is, if a beekeeper finds that one of his colonies has relocated to a tree in a neighboring field, he may bring it back to his own property together with the branch, provided that he later reimburses the owner of the tree. The baraita continues: And it is also a stipulation of the court that this bearer of wine pours out his wine from his barrel and uses the barrel to save another’s spilling honey, which is more valuable than the wine, and then he takes the value of his wine from the saved honey of the other, as reimbursement. And it is likewise a stipulation of the court that this owner of wood unloads his wood from his donkey and loads another’s flax, which is more valuable than wood, if the load of flax is stranded on the road due to a mishap, and later he takes the value of his wood from the saved flax of that other individual. Once again, the reason is that it was on this condition that Joshua apportioned Eretz Yisrael to the Jewish people. The Gemara explains why the stipulations mentioned by Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yishmael are omitted by the earlier baraita: In the baraita, we are not speaking of individual opinions, but only of those that are accepted by all the Sages.

שאלות לדיון

  • נסו להבין את עשר התקנות (או חלקן) – מה היסוד המשותף להן? מפני אלו "סכנות" תוקנו תקנות יהושע בן נון? על מה הן באו להגן?
  • על איזה בסיס אמוני נשענות התקנות?
  • איזה יחס מציעות התקנות בין הרכוש הפרטי ונחלת הכלל?
  • האם יש מקום לרכוש פרטי ?
ויקרא כ״ה:א׳-כ״ד

(א) וַיְדַבֵּ֤ר יְהֹוָה֙ אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֔ה בְּהַ֥ר סִינַ֖י לֵאמֹֽר׃ (ב) דַּבֵּ֞ר אֶל־בְּנֵ֤י יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ וְאָמַרְתָּ֣ אֲלֵהֶ֔ם כִּ֤י תָבֹ֙אוּ֙ אֶל־הָאָ֔רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֥ר אֲנִ֖י נֹתֵ֣ן לָכֶ֑ם וְשָׁבְתָ֣ה הָאָ֔רֶץ שַׁבָּ֖ת לַיהֹוָֽה׃

...
(ו) וְ֠הָיְתָ֠ה שַׁבַּ֨ת הָאָ֤רֶץ לָכֶם֙ לְאׇכְלָ֔ה לְךָ֖ וּלְעַבְדְּךָ֣ וְלַאֲמָתֶ֑ךָ וְלִשְׂכִֽירְךָ֙ וּלְתוֹשָׁ֣בְךָ֔ הַגָּרִ֖ים עִמָּֽךְ׃ (ז) וְלִ֨בְהֶמְתְּךָ֔ וְלַֽחַיָּ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר בְּאַרְצֶ֑ךָ תִּהְיֶ֥ה כׇל־תְּבוּאָתָ֖הּ לֶאֱכֹֽל׃ {ס} (ח) וְסָפַרְתָּ֣ לְךָ֗ שֶׁ֚בַע שַׁבְּתֹ֣ת שָׁנִ֔ים שֶׁ֥בַע שָׁנִ֖ים שֶׁ֣בַע פְּעָמִ֑ים וְהָי֣וּ לְךָ֗ יְמֵי֙ שֶׁ֚בַע שַׁבְּתֹ֣ת הַשָּׁנִ֔ים תֵּ֥שַׁע וְאַרְבָּעִ֖ים שָׁנָֽה׃

(יג) בִּשְׁנַ֥ת הַיּוֹבֵ֖ל הַזֹּ֑את תָּשֻׁ֕בוּ אִ֖ישׁ אֶל־אֲחֻזָּתֽוֹ׃

(כ) וְכִ֣י תֹאמְר֔וּ מַה־נֹּאכַ֖ל בַּשָּׁנָ֣ה הַשְּׁבִיעִ֑ת הֵ֚ן לֹ֣א נִזְרָ֔ע וְלֹ֥א נֶאֱסֹ֖ף אֶת־תְּבוּאָתֵֽנוּ׃ (כא) וְצִוִּ֤יתִי אֶת־בִּרְכָתִי֙ לָכֶ֔ם בַּשָּׁנָ֖ה הַשִּׁשִּׁ֑ית וְעָשָׂת֙ אֶת־הַתְּבוּאָ֔ה לִשְׁלֹ֖שׁ הַשָּׁנִֽים׃ (כב) וּזְרַעְתֶּ֗ם אֵ֚ת הַשָּׁנָ֣ה הַשְּׁמִינִ֔ת וַאֲכַלְתֶּ֖ם מִן־הַתְּבוּאָ֣ה יָשָׁ֑ן עַ֣ד ׀ הַשָּׁנָ֣ה הַתְּשִׁיעִ֗ת עַד־בּוֹא֙ תְּב֣וּאָתָ֔הּ תֹּאכְל֖וּ יָשָֽׁן׃ (כג) וְהָאָ֗רֶץ לֹ֤א תִמָּכֵר֙ לִצְמִתֻ֔ת כִּי־לִ֖י הָאָ֑רֶץ כִּֽי־גֵרִ֧ים וְתוֹשָׁבִ֛ים אַתֶּ֖ם עִמָּדִֽי׃ (כד) וּבְכֹ֖ל אֶ֣רֶץ אֲחֻזַּתְכֶ֑ם גְּאֻלָּ֖ה תִּתְּנ֥וּ לָאָֽרֶץ׃ {ס}

Leviticus 25:1-24
(1) The LORD spoke to Moses on Mount Sinai: (2) Speak to the Israelite people and say to them: When you enter the land that I assign to you, the land shall observe a sabbath of the LORD. (3) Six years you may sow your field and six years you may prune your vineyard and gather in the yield. (4) But in the seventh year the land shall have a sabbath of complete rest, a sabbath of the LORD: you shall not sow your field or prune your vineyard. (5) You shall not reap the aftergrowth of your harvest or gather the grapes of your untrimmed vines; it shall be a year of complete rest for the land. (6) But you may eat whatever the land during its sabbath will produce—you, your male and female slaves, the hired and bound laborers who live with you, (7) and your cattle and the beasts in your land may eat all its yield. (8) You shall count off seven weeks of years—seven times seven years—so that the period of seven weeks of years gives you a total of forty-nine years. (9) Then you shall sound the horn loud; in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month—the Day of Atonement—you shall have the horn sounded throughout your land (10) and you shall hallow the fiftieth year. You shall proclaim release throughout the land for all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee for you: each of you shall return to his holding and each of you shall return to his family. (11) That fiftieth year shall be a jubilee for you: you shall not sow, neither shall you reap the aftergrowth or harvest the untrimmed vines, (12) for it is a jubilee. It shall be holy to you: you may only eat the growth direct from the field. (13) In this year of jubilee, each of you shall return to his holding. (14) When you sell property to your neighbor, or buy any from your neighbor, you shall not wrong one another. (15) In buying from your neighbor, you shall deduct only for the number of years since the jubilee; and in selling to you, he shall charge you only for the remaining crop years: (16) the more such years, the higher the price you pay; the fewer such years, the lower the price; for what he is selling you is a number of harvests. (17) Do not wrong one another, but fear your God; for I the LORD am your God. (18) You shall observe My laws and faithfully keep My rules, that you may live upon the land in security; (19) the land shall yield its fruit and you shall eat your fill, and you shall live upon it in security. (20) And should you ask, “What are we to eat in the seventh year, if we may neither sow nor gather in our crops?” (21) I will ordain My blessing for you in the sixth year, so that it shall yield a crop sufficient for three years. (22) When you sow in the eighth year, you will still be eating old grain of that crop; you will be eating the old until the ninth year, until its crops come in. (23) But the land must not be sold beyond reclaim, for the land is Mine; you are but strangers resident with Me. (24) Throughout the land that you hold, you must provide for the redemption of the land.
  • האם על פי התורה יש רכוש פרטי בשנת השמיטה? באילו תנאים?

על פי הפרק התפיסה המוצגת היא שהארץ שייכת לה', אנחנו רק משתמשים בה ותפקידנו לשמור עליה. בשנת השמיטה, הרכוש שבשדה הופך לציבורי (הפקר), וכל אדם ובהמה יכולים להגיע ולאכול ממנו. כמו כן, ה' מבטיח בפרק לדאוג שהתבואה לפני שנת השמיטה תהיה משולשלת על מנת שלא יהיה מחסור לאף אדם.

בבא קמא נ׳ ב

לא יסקל אדם מרשותו לרה"ר (רשות הרבים)

מעשה באדם אחד שהיה מסקל מרשותו לרה"ר, ומצאו חסיד אחד, אמר לו: "ריקה! מפני מה אתה מסקל מרשות שאינה שלך לרשות שלך?" לגלג עליו.

לימים נצרך למכור שדהו והיה מהלך באותו רה"ר ונכשל באותן אבנים אמר: יפה אמר לי אותו חסיד: "מפני מה אתה מסקל מרשות שאינה שלך לרשות שלך":

Bava Kamma 50b
in the verse that recounts the thirteen attributes of mercy: “Long-suffering [erekh appayim]” (Exodus 34:6), using the plural form, and it is not written as erekh af, in the singular? In order to teach that He is long-suffering for both the righteous and for the wicked and does not punish them immediately for their transgressions. § The Sages taught: A person should not throw stones from his property into the public domain. An incident occurred involving a certain individual who was throwing stones from his property into the public domain, and a certain pious man found him. The latter said to him: Lowlife [reika], for what reason are you throwing stones from property that is not yours into your property? The man mocked him, as he did not understand what he meant, as the property from which he was throwing stones was his. Some days later, he was forced to sell his field from which he had thrown the stones. And he was walking in the same public domain into which he had thrown them, and he stumbled on those same stones. He said: That pious man said it well to me when he said: For what reason are you throwing stones from property that is not yours into your own property, since that property no longer belongs to me, and only the public domain remains mine to use. MISHNA: In the case of one who digs a pit in the public domain and an ox or a donkey fell into it, he is liable. The halakha is the same for one who digs either a pit; a ditch, which is narrow and long; or a cave, which is rectangular and roofed; trenches and water channels. In all these cases he is liable. If so, why is the verse stated as referring to a pit, as it states: “And if a man shall open a pit” (Exodus 21:33)? To teach that just as a pit that has sufficient depth to cause death when falling into it is at least ten handbreadths deep, so too, any other excavations that have sufficient depth to cause death may be no less than ten handbreadths. If any of the types of excavations were less than ten handbreadths deep, and an ox or a donkey fell into one of them and died, the digger of the excavation is exempt. But if it was injured in it, not killed, he is liable to pay damages. GEMARA: Rav says: Damage by Pit for which the Torah obligates one to pay is referring specifically to damage caused by the pit’s lethal fumes, i.e., suffocation, but not to damage caused by the impact of hitting the ground, for which the digger of the pit is exempt from paying compensation. The Gemara continues to explain: Apparently, it can be inferred that Rav maintains that with regard to the impact of hitting the bottom of the pit, it is merely the ground that injures him. The digger of the pit does not own the ground, so it is not a case where his property caused damage. Therefore, he does not bear responsibility for the damage. And Shmuel says: The Torah renders one liable for damage caused by its lethal fumes, and all the more so for damage resulting from the impact. Shmuel adds: And if you say that the Torah spoke only about liability for its impact and not for its lethal fumes, one could respond that the Torah testifies about a pit without specifying for which type of pit one is liable, and this includes even a pit full of woolen sponges [sefogin], which would completely absorb the impact. The Gemara asks: What is the difference between the opinions of Rav and Shmuel, given that falling into any pit involves injury due to both the lethal fumes and the impact? The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is in the case where one fashioned a mound with a height of ten handbreadths in the public domain without digging, and an animal fell from this raised platform and died. According to Rav, the one who fashioned the mound is not liable for damage by Pit in the case of a mound, since there are no fumes, as the animal fell to the level ground. By contrast, according to Shmuel, he is also liable for damage by Pit in the case of a mound, since there is nevertheless an impact when hitting the ground. The Gemara asks: What is the source for the reasoning of Rav, that one is not liable in that case? The Gemara answers: Since the verse states: “And an ox or a donkey fall therein” (Exodus 21:33), indicating that there is no liability for damage by Pit unless the animal falls in the normal manner of falling, but not where it first climbed onto an elevated surface and then fell from there to the level ground. And according to Shmuel, the term: “And an ox or a donkey fall,” indicates any manner of falling, regardless of whether the animal fell into a hole or fell to the ground from an elevated surface. The Gemara challenges Rav’s opinion: We learned in the mishna: If so, why is the verse stated as referring to a pit, as it states: “And if a man shall open a pit” (Exodus 21:33)? To teach that just as a pit that has sufficient depth to cause death when falling into it is at least ten handbreadths deep, so too, any other excavations that have sufficient depth to cause death may be no less than ten handbreadths. Now, granted that according to Shmuel, the term: So too, any other, serves to include the case where the animal fell from a height of ten handbreadths, in which case the one who fashioned the mound would also be liable. But according to Rav, who exempts him in that case, what does the term: So too, any other, add? The Gemara answers: According to Rav, it serves to include trenches and water channels. The Gemara asks: But trenches and water channels are explicitly taught in the mishna. Why does the mishna then allude to them again? The Gemara answers: It first teaches the halakha about them and then explains its source in the Torah. Having mentioned these details, the Gemara asks: And why do I need all these cases that are taught by the mishna? The Gemara answers: They are necessary, for had it taught only the case of a pit, I would say that it is specifically a pit of ten handbreadths that contains lethal fumes, because it is constricted and round. Therefore, this measurement suffices to cause death. But concerning a ditch, which is long, say that in a case where it is ten handbreadths deep, there are no lethal fumes and there is no liability. Therefore, the mishna teaches both the case of a pit and a ditch. And furthermore, had the mishna taught the case of a ditch in addition to the pit, I would say that it is specifically a ditch of ten handbreadths that contains the necessary lethal fumes, because it is narrow. But concerning a cave, which is rectangular and not narrow, say that in a case where it is ten handbreadths deep, there are no lethal fumes and there is no liability. Therefore, the mishna teaches the case of a cave as well. And furthermore, had the mishna taught the case of a cave in addition to the previous two, I would say that it is specifically a cave of ten handbreadths that contains lethal fumes, because it is covered. But concerning trenches, which are not covered, say that at a depth of ten handbreadths, there are no lethal fumes and there is no liability. Therefore, the mishna also teaches the case of trenches. And finally, had the mishna taught the case of trenches in addition to the previous three, I would say that it is specifically trenches of ten handbreadths that contain lethal fumes, since they are no wider at the top than at the bottom. But with regard to channels, which are wider at the top than at the bottom, say that at a depth of ten handbreadths there are no lethal fumes and there is no liability. Therefore, the mishna teaches us the case of channels as well, and each subsequent case listed contains a novel aspect. The Gemara raises a further challenge from that which we learned in the mishna: If any of the types of excavations were less than ten handbreadths deep, and an ox or a donkey fell into one of them and died, the digger of the excavation is exempt. But if it was injured, not killed, he is liable to pay damages. What is the reason for the ruling of: If an ox or a donkey fell into it and died, he is exempt? Is it not because at this height there is not sufficient impact, although there are lethal fumes? The Gemara responds: No, he is exempt because there are no lethal fumes. The Gemara challenges this: If that is so, that a pit less than ten handbreadths deep lacks sufficient lethal fumes, why is the one who dug it liable if the animal is injured; but there are no lethal fumes? The Gemara answers: There are not sufficient fumes to cause death, but there are sufficient fumes to cause damage. The Gemara relates: There was a certain ox that fell into a water channel [la’arita dedala’ei] whose depth was one cubit, i.e., six handbreadths. Because it suffered the impact of the fall, its owner assumed it would die and slaughtered it first, in order to eat the meat. Rav Naḥman, who was concerned that its organs were crushed by the fall, deemed it an animal with a condition that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa], which it is prohibited to consume. Furthermore, Rav Naḥman said: If the owner of this ox had taken a kav of flour to bake into bread to eat instead of slaughtering his animal for its meat, and gone and learned in the study hall that although an ox that falls and hits the ground is considered tereifa if slaughtered immediately, if the animal remained alive for twenty-four hours and is then slaughtered, it is fit to eat, he would not have lost his ox that was worth several kav of flour. The Gemara notes: Apparently, Rav Naḥman maintains that there is an impact caused even by a pit that is less than ten handbreadths, as Rav Naḥman was concerned in this case that its organs were crushed and it was fatally wounded. Rava raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Naḥman from the mishna: If any of the types of excavations were less than ten handbreadths deep, and an ox or a donkey fell into one of them and died, he is exempt. What is the reason for this? Is it not because there is no significant impact capable of causing death? If so, why is this animal deemed a tereifa?

שאלות:

  • איזה יחס מציג התלמוד בין רשות הרבים לרשות היחיד?
  • מה ניתן ללמוד מתוך הסיפור לחברת ימינו?
  • מדוע מכונה המורה בסיפור "חסיד"? אפשר לעשות הקבלה לפרקי אבות ה' י

הסיפור התלמודי דן באחריות של האדם גם על רשות הרבים. האדם סיקל אבנים מרשותו לרשות הרבים וננזף, לאחר זמן מה הבין את ההערה שכן מכר את אדמתו ונתקע באבנים ברשות הרבים שהוא שם שם. ההלכה מתייחסת לכך שאין אדם יכול לפגוע ברשות הרבים למען טובתו האישית. כיום יש אנשים ש"פוגעים" ברשות הרבים בדרכים שונות, יכולים לחשוב על דרכים כאלו?

המורה בסיפור מכונה חסיד, כלומר אדם שעושה מעשי חסד ונוהג ביושר. כך גם בסיפור הוא מוכיח את האדם שפוגע ברשות הרבים, מטרתו היא לשמור על המרחב הציבורי מפגיעה של אנשים.

למי שייכת רשות הרבים? / במבי שלג
כשהיינו ילדים, הים היה שייך לכולם: כל אחד יכול היה לגשת אל החוף ולהשתכשך בין הגלים. כשהיינו ילדים, הפרסומות הופיעו בין דפי העיתונים ומעל גלי האתר. את הקונים הפוטנציאליים נהוג היה לפתות באמצעות חלונות ראווה יפים ומסוגננים, שהוצגו בהם מוצרים המיועדים למכירה. הרחובות, הבניינים, הגינות ואתרי הבילוי היו נקיים מפרסומות. [...] וזו אינה רק נוסטלגיה דביקה. לאט, לא ביום אחד, השתנה הנוף. כמעט בלי שנשים לב, מישהו תחם את הים. מישהו גָדַר לו חוף פרטי. מישהו ארגן לעצמו חוף, שאפשר להיכנס אליו רק תמורת תשלום. מישהו אחר קיבל זיכיון לכביש פרטי. בלי שנשים לב, הפרסומות השתלטו על הכבישים, על המדרכות, על החלונות, על הבניינים, על תחנות הדלק, על הגינות, על המסיבות הציבוריות; [...] האנטנות של החברות הסלולריות היו לחלק בלתי נפרד מן הנוף העירוני; והנוף העירוני - לשבוי בידי גורמים כלכליים, בעיקר נדל"ניים. הבעיה היחידה שמעוררות כל ההתרחשויות האלה היא שלא שאלו אותנו, את הציבור, אם אנחנו מסכימים. החליטו בשבילנו. וכך, בלי לשאול אותנו לדעתנו, השתלטו על רכוש ועל זכויות שהם שלנו - של הרבים, של הקולקטיב, של הציבור.

(במבי שלג, 'למי שייכת רשות הרבים', ארץ אחרת, 29 (2005)

שאלות:

  • במבי שלג מתארת את טשטוש הגבולות שבין רשות היחיד לרשות הרבים.
  • באילו מקרים הופכת רשות הרבים לרשות היחיד?
  • מהן זכויותיו של אדם על רשות היחיד?
ויקרא רבה ד׳

תָּנֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר יוֹחָאי,

מָשָׁל לִבְנֵי אָדָם שֶׁהָיוּ יוֹשְׁבִין בִּסְפִינָה. נָטַל אֶחָד מֵהֶן מַקְדֵּחַ וְהִתְחִיל קוֹדֵחַ תַּחְתָּיו,

אָמְרוּ לוֹ חֲבֵרָיו: מַה אַתָּה יוֹשֵׁב וְעוֹשֶׂה?

אָמַר לָהֶם: מָה אִכְפַּת לָכֶם? לֹא תַחְתִּי אֲנִי קוֹדֵחַ!

אָמְרוּ לוֹ: שֶׁהַמַּיִם עוֹלִין וּמְצִיפִין עָלֵינוּ אֶת הַסְּפִינָה!

Vayikra Rabbah 4

(1) "When a person incurs guilt accidentally by [transgressing one among] all of the commandments of YHVH": This is that of which the Bible says: "And indeed I have witnessed under the sun the place of judgment..." (Ecclesiastes 3:16). Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua [in conversation]...

(5) "Speak to the children of Israel, saying, 'A person who has transgressed...'." Rabbi Ishmael taught a parable [or "made a comparison"] to a king who had an orchard and in it had lovely first fruits. The king placed upon it guards, one lame and one blind. He said to them: 'Take care of these lovely first fruits.' After some days, the lame one said to the blind one, 'I see lovely first fruits in the orchard.' The blind one said to him, 'Bring them, and we will eat!' The lame one said to the blind one, '[I would] were I able to walk!' The blind one said, '[I would] were I able to see!' The lame one rode upon the back of the blind one, and they ate the first fruits, and they went and returned each man in his own place. After some days, the king entered that orchard. He said to them, 'Where are the beautiful first fruits?' The blind one said to him, 'My lord king, [I would] were I able to see!' The lame one said to him, '[I would] were I able to walk!' That king understood what they had done. He placed the the lame one on the back of the blind one and they began to walk." Thus, in the future, the Holy Blessing One will say to the soul, "Why did you transgress before Me?" It will say to him, "Master of the Universe! I did not sin. The body is the one who sinned! From the moment I left it I have been like a pure bird bursting into the air. How have I transgressed before You?" God will say to the body, "Why have you transgressed before Me?" The body will say to him, Master of the Universe! I did not sin. The soul is the one who sinned! From the moment that she left me, I have been tossed like a rock is thrown onto the ground. How would I have transgressed before you?!" What does the Holy Blessing One do to them? God brings the soul and throws it into the body and judges them together, as it is said, "He will call to the heavens above..." (Psalms 50: 4). God will call to the heavens above to bring the soul and to the earth to bring the body, and judge them together. Rabbi Hiyya [told a parable] compared this to a priest who had two wives, one a daughter of a priest and the other a daughter of a Levi...

(6) Hezkiya taught (Jeremiah 50:17): "Israel are scattered sheep" - why are Israel likened to a sheep? Just as a sheep, when hurt on its head or some other body part, all of its body parts feel it. So it is with Israel when one of them sins and everyone feels it. (Numbers 16:22): "When one man sins [will You be wrathful with the whole community]." Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai taught a parable: Men were on a ship. One of them took a drill and started drilling underneath him. The others said to him: What are sitting and doing?! He replied: What do you care. Is this not underneath my area that I am drilling?! They said to him: But the water will rise and flood us all on this ship. This is as Iyob said (Job 19:4): "If indeed I have erred, my error remains with me." But his friends said to him (Job 34:37): "He adds transgression to his sin; he extends it among us." [The men on the ship said]: You extend your sins among us. Rabbi Elasa said: a gentile asked Rabbi Yehoshua ben Karha: In your Torah, it is written (Exodus 23:2): "After the multitude will you side." We are more numerous than you, so why don't you become like us in practicing idolatry? He [Rabbi Yehoshua ben Karha] said to him: Do you have children? He replied: You reminded me of my troubles. He asked: Why? [The gentile] said: I have many children. When they sit at my table, this one blesses to this god and that one blesses to that god, and they don't get up from the table until they wrack each other's brains. He [Rabbi Yehoshua ben Karha] said: Do you settle [the arguments] with them? He said: No. He [Rabbi Yehoshua ben Karha] said: Before you make us agree with you, find agreement with your own children! [The gentile] was spurned and went away. After he left [Rabbi Yehoshua ben Karha's] students said to him: Rabbi! You pushed him away like a broken reed, but what would you answer for us? He said to them: Six souls are about written [in the Torah] about Esau, and "souls" [nefashot] is written in the plural, as stated (Genesis 36:6): "Esau took his wives, his sons and daughters, and all the souls of his household." For Yaakov, however, there were seventy souls, and soul [nefesh] is written [in the Torah] in the singular. As it is stated (Exodus 1:5): "And all of the people [nefesh] that were of Jacob's issue, etc." Because Esau worshipped many gods, it is written many "souls," but for Yaakov--who worshipped one God--it is written one soul, "And all of the people [nefesh], etc."

(8) And what did David see in his soul to be praising to the Holy One, blessed be He? But [David] said: this soul fills the body, as the Holy One, blessed be He fills His world. As it is written: (Jeremiah 23:24): "Do I not fill both heaven and earth —declares the LORD." Come, the soul that fills the body, and praise the Holy One, blessed be He, who fills the whole world. This soul supports the body, as the Holy One, blessed be He, supports His world. As it is written: (Isaiah 46:4): "I was the Maker, and I will be the Bearer; And I will support [you]." Come, the soul that supports the body, and praise the Holy One, blessed be He, who supports His world.

שאלות לדיון:

  • משל זה מתאר מצב שבו רשות הרבים ורשות היחיד קשורות זו בזו. הסבירו.
  • נסו לחשוב על מצבים דומים במציאות ימינו.

לאורך המוקורות ניסינו לעמוד על המתח שבין האישי והציבורי. עלתה השאלה של מי האחריות לשמור על הסביבה? על רשות הרבים? הסיפור הראשון אנו רואים שיש לנו אחריות לדאוג למרחב הציבורי גם לאחר חיינו. בהמשך עולה הטענה באופן ברור שלכל אדם יש חובה להאיר ולדאוג למרחב הציבורי. חובתנו לשמור, לטפח ולא לפגוע. במדינת ישראל יש חוקים רבים שנועדו להגן על המרחב הציבורי בין אם איסור על זריקת זבל, חובה לאסוף צואה של בעלי חיים ועוד. אבל כל אלו לא מספיקים זו רק ההתחלה, המרחב האישי והציבורי כל הזמן מתשתשים והגבול בינהם אינו ברור, כיצד חוקים אלו באים לידי ביטוי ברשתות החברתיות? בטבע? באירועים המוניים? לבסוף חובתנו לזכור שלכל אדם יש אחריות על הכלל, על כבוד הארץ והחברה האנושית, למעשים שלנו יש השפעה על הברה הסובבת אותנו ואנו צריכים לזכור זאת ולפעול בהתאם. לשמור לקיים ולהיטיב עם החברה והסביבה.

שנת השמיטה הקרובה מזמינה אותנו לעצור לשנה ולחשוב על היחסים שלנו עם הטבע והחברה ולצמוח ולשנות הרגלים על מנת שנצליח להיות יותר טובים ממה שאנחנו כרגע.