Study Gittin folio 44B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
ואם תימצי לומר: ״כוון מלאכתו במועד, ומת – לא קנסו בנו אחריו״ – משום דלא עבד איסורא, הכא מאי? לדידיה קנסו רבנן – והא ליתיה; או דילמא לממוניה קנסו רבנן – והא איתיה?
And if you say that there is a different comparison: The halakha is that while there are types of labor that one is permitted to perform on the intermediate days of Passover and Sukkot, one may not intentionally schedule the labor to be performed at those times. One who does so is penalized and must forfeit the profits of that labor. The halakha is that if one planned to perform his labor on the intermediate days of the Festival, and he died, then his child is not penalized after him, because the son did not perform a prohibited act. Here, what is the halakha? Did the rabbis penalize only him, and he is no longer alive, or perhaps the rabbis penalized his property, by saying that he should lose it, and his property still exists?
אמר ליה, תניתוה: שדה שנתקווצה בשביעית, תזרע למוצאי שביעית. נטייבה או נדיירה – לא תזרע למוצאי שביעית.
R' Asi said to him: You already learned in a Mishnah (Shevi’it 4:2): A field whose thorns were removed during the Sabbatical Year may be sown after the conclusion of the Sabbatical Year, since removing thorns is not full-fledged labor that renders the produce of the field prohibited. And it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Shevi’it 3:6): If it had been improved with fertilizer, or if it had been populated by the owner’s herd in order to fertilize the field with their manure, it may not be sown after the conclusion of the Sabbatical Year, for the rabbis imposed a penalty to prevent one from benefiting from prohibited labor.
ואמר רבי יוסי ברבי חנינא, נקטינן: הטיבה ומת – בנו זורעה. אלמא לדידיה קנסו רבנן, לבריה לא קנסו רבנן.
And R' Yosei, son of R' Ḥanina, says: We have a tradition that if one improved his field in a forbidden manner, and then died, his son may sow it. Apparently, we should infer that the general principle with regard to penalties is that the rabbis applied the penalty to the one who committed the transgression himself, but the rabbis did not penalize his son.