Mishneh Torah, Sabbatical Year and the Jubilee 1-2

Sugya Map

• Issue: The ontological nature of the Mitzvah of Shemitah—is it a Chovat Gavra (incumbent upon the person) or Chovat Cheftza (incumbent upon the land)?
• Nafka Mina: Can a Jew hire a gentile to work their land during Shemitah? Does the Mitzvah of "the land shall rest" require the human to cease, or the land to remain inactive?
• Primary Sources: Leviticus 25:2, Exodus 34:21, Moed Kattan 4a, Mishneh Torah, Sabbatical Year and the Jubilee 1:1.

Text Snapshot

• "It is a positive commandment to rest from performing agricultural work..." (Mishneh Torah, Sabbatical Year and the Jubilee 1:1).
• Leshon Nuance: The Rambam balances the person ("to rest") with the object ("the land will rest"). Note the use of the infinitive lishbot (to rest), grounding the gavra in the cheftza.
• Dikduk Note: The Rambam references Exodus 34:21 ("In plowing and harvesting you shall rest"). By citing this alongside Leviticus 25:2, he synthesizes the Chovat Gavra with the Chovat Cheftza, implying that the cessation is the action of the mitzvah.

Readings

1. The Radbaz (Commentary to Rambam, 1:1)

The Radbaz addresses the tension between the person and the land. He posits that even if the negative prohibitions (e.g., "Do not sow") are chovat gavra (the person is liable for the act), the positive commandment of Shabbat HaAretz is inherently tied to the state of the land. His chiddush is that if a gentile works a Jew's field, the Jew may not have violated a biblical negative prohibition (since the gentile performed the act), but the Jew has failed the positive mandate of "The land shall rest." This shifts the focus from the act of labor to the outcome of the land's status.

2. Shabbat HaAretz (Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak Kook)

Rav Kook offers a profound meta-analysis of this tension. He suggests that the mitzvah is a binary: one must prevent the land from being "worked." He raises the possibility that if a gentile works the land, the owner is in violation of the positive commandment because the land has not experienced its "Sabbath." However, he provides a leniency: the positive commandment is only violated if the Jew himself treats the land as a subject of work. If the land is leased to a gentile, some authorities argue the Jew is not "working" the land, thus satisfying the requirement for the owner to be passive.

Friction

The Strongest Kushya: If the mitzvah is "the land shall rest" (Leviticus 25:2), why is there any distinction between the owner working it and a gentile working it? If the land is not resting, the mitzvah is not fulfilled. Conversely, if the mitzvah is merely a chovat gavra to avoid labor, then leasing the land should be irrelevant—the owner has effectively stopped working.

The Terutz: The Rambam distinguishes between Sabbath and Shemitah. In Sabbath, the prohibition is entirely gavra (the person rests). In Shemitah, the land has a kedushat shevi'it (sanctity of the seventh). Therefore, the terutz is that the mitzvah is a synthesis: it is a Chovat Gavra to ensure the Cheftza (the land) remains in a state of rest. When a gentile works the land, the Cheftza is violated, but the Gavra (the Jew) may not be liable for the negative prohibitions (which require his specific agency), though he fails the positive requirement of his land's rest.

Intertext

• Sanhedrin 43a: The concept of shlichut (agency) in prohibited acts. Generally, there is no shaliach for a devar aveira (a forbidden act), which supports the idea that the Jew is not liable for the negative prohibition of sowing if a gentile does it.
• Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 333: Laws of leasing property. The SA allows leasing to gentiles with conditions, highlighting the meta-psak heuristic that communal survival (avoiding total economic collapse during Shemitah) requires navigating the boundary between the cheftza (land) and gavra (owner).

Psak/Practice

In modern practice, the Heter Mechirah—the sale of land to a non-Jew—is the primary application of this sugya. It operates on the logic that by transferring the ownership (the cheftza), the Jew is no longer the one under the mandate to ensure the land rests. However, this remains a point of intense dispute, as the Chazon Ish and others argued that the kedushat shevi'it of the land of Israel remains, regardless of ownership, making the Chovat Cheftza immutable.

Takeaway

Shemitah is the ultimate test of faith: it forces the owner to acknowledge that the land is not his to command. Whether the mitzvah is a duty of the person or the land, the result is a surrender of control to the Divine.