## Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim Chapter 2

###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:1:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:1:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/2:1:1)

**משנה:** כָּל סְאָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ רוֹבַע זֶרַע מִמִּין אַחֵר יְמָעֵט. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר יָבוֹר בֵּין מִמִּין אֶחָד בֵּין מִשְּׁנֵי מִינִין. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר לֹא אָמְרוּ אֶלָּא מִמִּין אֶחָד. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים כָּל שֶׁהוּא כִלְאַיִם בִּסְאָה מִצְטָרֵף לְרוֹבַע. בְּמַה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים תְּבוּאָה בִתְבוּאָה וְקִטְנִית בְּקִטְנִית תְּבוּאָה בְקִטְנִית וְקִטְנִית בִּתְבוּאָה. בֶּאֱמֶת אָמְרוּ זֵירְעוֹנֵי גִינָּה שֶׁאֵינָן נֶאֱכָלִין מִצְטָרְפִין אֶחָד מֵעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה בְּנוֹפֵל לְבֵית סְאָה. אָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאָמְרוּ לְהַחֲמִיר אַף לְהָקֵל. הַפִּשְׁתָּן בִּתְבוּאָה מִצְטָרֶפֶת אֶחָד מֵעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה בְּנוֹפֵל לְבֵית סְאָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** Every *seah* that contains a quarter¹ which is ¹/24 *seah*. Here one speaks about seeds. Since seeds usually come mixed with weeds and other seeds, some sowing of different kinds together is unavoidable. In *Baba Batra*, Mishnah 6:2, up to a quarter *qab* of foreign material in a *seah* of grain is established as the standard accepted in any trading contract unless otherwise specified. From the Biblical requirement, it is only necessary that the farmer have no intention of sowing the undesirable seeds with his crop. But in order to avoid the appearance of intentional *kilaim*, the rabbis gave an upper limit also of one *qab* in 24 before requiring action. of seeds from another kind should be diminished²; Rebbi Yose says, he must pick it out, whether it be from one kind or from two kinds³ in any way; the Sages say that everything which is *kilaim* with the main crop is added together. So if wheat seed is contaminated with barley, *zewanin*, and peas, and together they are more than one in 24 but any two of them together are less than that amount, then for the Sages one does not have to act since *zewanin* are not *kilaim* with wheat, but R. Yose would require that the entire seed grain be sifted since *zewanin* are *kilaim* with peas.. Rebbi Simeon said, they said it only for one kind, but the Sages say, everything that is *kilaim* with the *seah* counts together for a quarter.
When is this said³² of foreign seeds makes a *seah* of seeds unusable.? Grain with grain, legumes with legumes, grain with legumes, legumes with grain³³ for a field of 2500 square cubits (a *bet seah*). But if seeds need appreciably less than that, the amount which makes seed grain unusable is 1 in 24 of the amount used for the contaminant. It was already explained in Halakhah 1, Note 22, that for kitchen greens whose seeds are not edible, the amount of seed used for one *bet* *seah* is only one sixth or one twelfth of a *seah*. The amount of these seeds sufficient to make a *seah* of seed grain unusable is ¹/24 of either a *qab* or half a *qab*.. In truth, they said that garden seeds which are not eaten add up together for one in 24 when they fall on a *bet seah*. Rebbi Simeon said, that which they said to restrict, they also said for leniency. Flax seeds³⁴ in grain add up together for one in 24 when they fall on a *bet seah*.

footnotes:
¹ A quarter qab
² Some of the foreign seeds have to be taken out, so that the entire contamination is brought below the limit. R. Yose requires that once one has started cleaning up the seeds, all foreign seeds should be eliminated.
³ Kinds of weeds and contamination with other crops. Rebbi Simeon says that each kind of contamination has its own limit, Rebbi Yose says that all those are counted together which are kilaim
³² That a quarter kab
³³ All these need approximately one seah
³⁴ This is explained in the Halakhah, text following Note 44.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:1:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:1:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/2:1:2)

**הלכה:** אֲנָן תַּנִּינָן שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַּנֵּי שֶׁנָּפַל לְתוֹכָהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא מָאן דְּאָמַר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ אֶחָד מֵעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה. מָאן דְּאָמַר שֶׁנָּפַל לְתוֹכָהּ אֶחָד מֵעֶשְׂרִים וַחֲמִשָּׁה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן בֵּין כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ בֵּין כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר שֶׁנָּפַל לְתוֹכָהּ אֶחָד מֵעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה. מַיי כְדוֹן מָאן דְּאָמַר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ בְּתָלוּשׁ. מָאן דְּאָמַר שִֶׁנָּפַל לְתוֹכָהּ בִּמְחוּבָּר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** We have stated, “which contains.” Some Tannaïm state⁵. The Tosephta (*Kilaim* 1:16) has the same language as the Mishnah., “into which fell.” Rebbi Mana said, he who says “which contains” means one in 24⁶, he who says “into which fell” means one in 25⁷ is 24 quarters, if an additional quarter fell in, then the total adds up to 25 quarters, and we have 1 quarter of rejects in 24 good ones.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, both for him who says “which contains” and for him who says “into which fell,” it means one in 24⁸ 94a.. How is that? “Which contains,” if it is cut, “into which fell,” if it is standing⁹ 94a, *s*.*v*. סאה) against R. Samuel ben Meïr..

footnotes:
⁵ In a parallel baraita
⁶ If 24 quarters contain 1 quarter of foreign material, that is 1 in 24 of the total, 1 in 23 of useful grain.
⁷ Since a seah
⁸ Since this is the commercial standard, there is no reason to change the standard here. This is also the position of the Babli, Baba Batra
⁹ The first case deals with grain bought as grain. In the second case, the contamination of the seed grain is detected after sowing, when the grain already is growing. This proves that the standard applies also to growing produce, not only to seed grain, supporting the position of Tosaphot (Baba Batra


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:1:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:1:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/2:1:3)

מַה נָן קַיָימִין. אִם בְּמִתְכַּוֵּין לְזֶרַע אֲפִילוּ חִיטָּה אַחַת אָסוּר. אִם לְעָרֵב אֲפִילוּ כָּל שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר לְעָרֵב. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא אַבָּא בַּר חִיָיא בְשֵׁם רַב הַבּוֹרֵר צְרוֹרוֹת מִתּוֹךְ כֵּירִיּוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ חַיָיב לְהַעֲמִיד לוֹ חִיטִּין יָפוֹת תַּחְתֵּיהֶן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר לְעָרֵב. אִם אָמַר אַתְּ שֶׁמּוּתָּר לְעָרֵב לָמָּה לִי חִיטִּין יָפוֹת תַּחְתֵּיהֶן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
What are we talking about¹⁰? If he intended it for seed¹¹ and the standards of Mishnah 1:9 apply. The implication is that the yield from these impurities may not be selected out after harvest and sold separately, because that would make the entire harvest *kilaim* and forbidden. then even one grain of wheat is forbidden. If to mix in¹², it is forbidden to mix. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Abba bar Ḥiyya¹³ 93b), the name is Rav Abba bar Ḥiyya from Ktesiphon (on the Tigris) in the name of Rabba (Rav Abba bar Naḥmani, of the third generation after Rav.) In any case, it is clear that the author here is Babylonian and not identical with Rebbi Abba bar Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba. in the name of Rav: He who takes out impurities from his neighbor’s heap has to give him good grain in their stead¹⁴. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that one is forbidden to mix in; if you say that one is permitted to mix them back in, why require good grain instead?

footnotes:
¹⁰ How can the case of the Mishnah appear legitimate?
¹¹ If he recognizes the impurities in the seeds and intends to grow them for themselves, then it is kilaim
¹² Since no farmer may sell grain with more than the permitted impurities, at harvest time he and the grain wholesalers will see to it that the impurities are not more than 1 in 24. In order to get illegitimate seed, he would have to mix in impurities; this is forbidden and we are not concerned here with intentional lawbreakers.
¹³ In the parallel in the Babli (Baba Batra
¹⁴ Since the neighbor could have sold his grain with the impurities under a standard contract, the one who sifts the grain causes him to lose the value of the volume of the impurities he removes. {The word צרור translated here as “impurity” is not the biblical word (I. money pouch, II. flintstone), but is connected with Hebrew צרר II (to be hostile), more directly with the corresponding Arabic ضوّ צ̇רּ (to be noxious, pernicious).}


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:1:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:1:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/2:1:4)

מָכַר לוֹ חִיטִּין יָפוֹת וְנִמְצְאוּ בְּרוּרוֹת. מַהוּ שֶׁיְּנַכֶּה לוֹ דְּמֵי אוֹתוֹ הָרוֹבַע. מִילֵּיהוֹן דְּרַבָּנִין אָמְרִין אֵינוֹ מְנַכֶּה לוֹ דְּמֵי אוֹתוֹ הָרוֹבַע. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא אַבָּא בַּר חִיָיא בְשֵׁם רַב הַבּוֹרֵר צְרוֹרוֹת מִתּוֹךְ חִיטִּין שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ חַיָיב לְהַעֲמִיד לוֹ חִטִּין יָפוֹת תַּחְתֵּיהֶן. בִּירֵר רוֹבַע אֶחָד וּמֶחֱצָה מַהוּ שֶיְּנַכֶּה לוֹ דְמֵי אוֹתוֹ הָרוֹבַע. רִבִּי חִינְנָא וְרִבִּי מָנָא. רִבִּי חִינְנָא אָמַר מְנַכֶּה לוֹ. רִבִי מָנָא אָמַר אֵינוֹ מְנַכֶּה לוֹ. דְּהוּא אָמַר לֵיהּ אִילּוּ יְהַבְתּוּן לִי הֲוֵינָא צְרַר לוֹן בְּסִירְקִי מַה דַהֲוָה זְבוּנָה חֲמִי הוּא זְבַן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
If one sold wheat as [standard] good quality and it turned out to be sifted, may he take out the value of that quarter¹⁵ of seeds guaranteed by the standard contract or does the buyer have to pay extra for the good grain he receives instead of the standard impurities? This problem belongs to *Baba Batra*; it is treated here because the problem comes up naturally from the statement of Rav which belongs to *Baba Batra*.? The words of the rabbis say that he cannot take out the value of that quarter, for Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Abba bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Rav: He who takes out impurities from his neighbor’s grain has to give him good grain in their stead. If he¹⁶ 6:2). He chose instead to clean up the grain. Everybody agrees that he does not have to pay for the volume of the half quarter which exceeds the standard. The question is, since he started cleaning and took all impurities out, does he pay only for the remaining grain or may the seller insist to be paid also for the quarter of impurities which would have been legal and is reflected in the price charged for a unit of volume? removed one and one half quarters, may he take out the value of that quarter? Rebbi Ḥinena and Rebbi Mana. Rebbi Ḥinena said, he takes it out¹⁷. Rebbi Mana said, he does not take it out, because he can say to him, if you had returned it to me, I would have bundled it for the Saracens who would have bought it; what that buyer sees is what he buys¹⁸.

footnotes:
¹⁵ Since the standard contract allows for impurities, may the seller deliver only the 23/24 seah
¹⁶ The buyer noticed that the grain he bought contained more impurities than those allowed by the standard contract. He has the right to return the merchandise for a full refund (Mishnah Baba Batra
¹⁷ He pays only for the sifted grain, at the rate of standard grain.
¹⁸ Saracens, Arab traders without fixed residence, buy and sell “as is”, without warranties. The buyer would have inspected the grain before buying and offered a price based on his inspection.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:1:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:1:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/2:1:5)

אֶלָּא בְּשֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ דֶּרֶךְ מַכְנֵס. וְהָא תַנִּינָן בֶּאֱמֶת אָמְרוּ זֵירְעוֹנֵי גִינָּה שֶׁאֵינָן נֶאֱכָלִין מִצְטָרְפִין אֶחָד מֵעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה. בְּנוֹפֵל לְבֵית סְאָה. וְתַנֵּי עֲלָהּ בְּגִין קַב וַחֲצִי קַב. וְאֶחָד מֵעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה לַחֲצִי קַב טָב הוּא כְּלוּם. עַד כָּאן חָשׁוּ לְמַרְאִית הָעַיִן. מִיכַּן וְאֵילַךְ לֹא חָשׁוּ לְמַרְאִית הָעַיִן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
But when they were mixed up during transport²⁰, one returns to the original question and answers that more than one in 24 may contaminate the harvest by accidents during transport from the field to the storage facility. From here on to the end of the Halakhah one deals exclusively with seed grain.. But did we not state²¹: “In truth, they said that garden seeds which are not eaten add up together for one in 24 when they fall on a bet *seah*.” And we stated on that, this is a *qab* or half a *qab*²² for the larger seeds and half a *qab* for the smaller seeds. Since these seeds are so much smaller than seed grain, they cannot be 1 in 24 of the full *seah* since that would overwhelm all the grain, but only 1 in 144 or 1 in 288, depending on the size of the seeds. The standard is a contamination of 1 in 24 of the harvest, not the seeds.. What could one do with the twenty-fourth part of half a *qab*²³? For that, they are worried because of the bad impression²⁴. They were not worried because of the bad impression from a lesser amount.

footnotes:
²⁰ After the interruption by the theme from Baba Batra
²¹ Next Mishnah, dealing with the details of the rule of Mishnah 1. “Garden seeds which are not eaten” are seeds of kitchen greens which in themselves are not food. They are usually very small and the resulting contamination will be more than 1 in 24 at harvest time. Any statement introduced by “in truth” is unquestioned practice.
²² The standard of maximal contamination for seeds of kitchen greens is a qab
²³ About 0.09 liter.
²⁴ The entire rule is rabbinical so people should not think the contamination was intentional. One forbids only accidental weeds or strange admixtures which exceed the commercial standard.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:1:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:1:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/2:1:6)

יְמָעֵט. כְּאֵי זֶה צַד הוּא מְמָעֵט אוֹ פּוֹחֵת מִן הָרוֹבַע אוֹ מוֹסִיף עַל הַסְּאָה. לֹא כֶן אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן כָּל הָאִיסּוּרִין שֶׁרִיבָה עֲלֵיהֶן שׁוֹגֵג מוּתָּר מֵזִיד אָסוּר. תַּמָּן אַתְּ מַרְבֶּה לְבַטֵּל אִיסּוּר תּוֹרָה. בְּרַם הָכָא אַתְּ מַרְבֶּה לְבַטֵּל מִפְּנֵי מַרְאִית הָעַיִן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“Should be diminished²⁵.” How does he diminish? Either he removes from the quarter or he adds to the *seah*. But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say (Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan), for all prohibitions, if one added in error, it is permitted, if intentionally, it is forbidden²⁶. There you add to annul a Torah prohibition, but here you add because of the bad impression.

footnotes:
²⁵ Quote from the Mishnah.
²⁶ For example, if some dairy product fell into a meat dish, if the meat dish by volume is more than 60 times that of the dairy product, the contamination is declared minimal and the dish is permitted to be eaten. (This is the rabbinical standard.) If the ratio was less at the time of the accident but later some more of the meat dish was added inadvertently or unknowingly, the measure at the end is determining. But if the addition was made in the knowledge of the prior prohibited contamination, then the measure at the time of the accident is determining and the later addition must be disregarded. How can the Mishnah here permit intentionally adding to legalize the prohibited mixture?


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:1:7
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:1:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/2:1:7)

רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר יְבָרֵר. מַה טַעְמָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁהִתְחִיל בְּרוֹבַע צָרִיךְ לְהַשְׁלִים אֶת כָּל הָרוֹבַע. מוֹדֵה רִבִּי יוֹסֵי שֶׁאִם הָיָה שָׁם פָּחוֹת מִן הָרוֹבַע מִשָּׁעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה אֵינוֹ זָקוּק לוֹ. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָה. הָיָה שָׁם רוֹבַע אֶחָד מִשְּׁנֵי מִינִין בּוֹרֵר מִין אֶחָד וְדַיוֹ אוֹ צָרִיךְ לָבוּר אֶת כּוּלּוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“Rebbi Yose says, he must pick it out.” What is the reason of Rebbi Yose? Because he started with the quarter, he must finish the entire quarter. Rebbi Yose agrees that if there was less than a quarter when he started, he does not need to attend to it²⁷ and forbidden.. How is that done? If there was a quarter composed of two kinds, does he pick out one kind and that is sufficient, or does he have to pick out everything²⁸?

footnotes:
²⁷ If he started to remove the foreign seeds when he did not have to he may stop in the middle, before removing all of it. We do not say that the fact of his removing impurities shows that he is bothered by their presence and, therefore, any sowing would be intentional sowing of kilaim
²⁸ The question is not answered since practice does not follow R. Yose.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:1:8
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:1:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/2:1:8)

רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר לֹא אָמְרוּ אֶלָּא מִין אֶחָד שְׁנֵי מִינִין לֹא. עַד הֵיכָן. עַד רוּבָּהּ שֶׁל סְאָה. חָזַר וְהוֹסִיף חָזְרָה הַתְּבוּאָה לְהֵתֵירָהּ. כְּמַה דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אָמַר אֵין שְׁנֵי מִינִין מִצְטָרְפִין לְאִסּוּר. כֵּן הוּא אָמַר הָכָא אֵין שְׁנֵי מִינִין מִצְטָרְפִין לְהֵיתֵר. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָא. הָיָה שָׁם עֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁנַיִם רְבָעִים וּמֶחֱצָה שֶׁל חִיטִּים וַחֲצִי רוֹבַע שְׂעוֹרִין וְנָפַל לְתוֹכוֹ פָּחוֹת מֵרוֹבַע עֲדָשִׁים אֲפִילוּ כֵּן אֵין שְׁנֵי מִינִין מִצְטָרְפִין לְהֵיתֵר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“Rebbi Simeon said, they said it only for one kind,” not two kinds. How far? Up to the greater part of the *seah*²⁹. If he added afterwards, the grain returned to its permitted status³⁰. Just as Rebbi Simeon said, two kinds do not combine for prohibition, so he says that they do not combine for permission. How is that done? If there were twenty-three and one half quarters of wheat and half a quarter of barley, and into that fell less than a quarter of lentils³¹, even so the two kinds would not combine for permission.

footnotes:
²⁹ As long as the total of foreign seeds is less than 50% and each single contamination is less than 1 in 24, the seeds remain permitted. (Up to 12 contaminants of maximum volume are possible.)
³⁰ R. Simeon accepts the earlier interpretation that adding of the main seedstock makes everything permitted again.
³¹ It is supposed here that the volume of the lentils is at least 23.5/24 = 0.9792 quarters but less than one quarter. In that case, if the lentils were judged against the combined volume into which they fell, it would be less than 1 in 24. But since the barley is not counted at all, the contamination is at least a full twenty-fourth of the volume of wheat grain and the mixture is forbidden.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:1:9
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:1:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/2:1:9)

וְתַנֵּי עַלָּהּ כְּגוֹן שְׁלֹשֶׁת קַבִּין וְאַרְבָּעַת קַבִּין הָא קַבַּיִים אֶחָד מֵעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע. בֶּאֱמֶת אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁשָּׁנוּ בֶּאֱמֶת הֲלָכָה לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי. וְתַנֵּי עֲלָהּ כְּגוֹן קַב וַחֲצִי קַב. הָא קַבַּיִים בְּרוֹבַע. הָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר קַבַּיִים בְּרוֹבַע. וְהָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר קַבַּיִים אֶחָד מֵעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה. רִבִּי זְעִירָא וְרִבִּי אָבוּנָא בְשֵׁם רַב הוּנָא. חַד אָמַר תִּשְׁעַת קַבִּין וְחָרָנָה אָמַר עַד שְׁמוֹנֶה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
We have stated about this, “three or four *qab*,” hence two *qab* go by one in 24³⁵, i. e., between ⅔ and ½ *seah* per *bet* *seah*. Hence, seeds that need less volume are considered kitchen vegetables and go by ¹/24. In slightly different language, this is explicitly stated in Tosephta *Kilaim* 1:16.. “In truth;” Rebbi Eleazar said that every place where they stated “in truth,” it is practice going back to Moses on Mount Sinai.³⁶ *Meẓia*‘ 60a. And we stated about this, for example a *qab* or half a *qab*³⁷.Hence, two *qab* go by a quarter. Here you say, two *qab* by a quarter, and there you say, two *qab* by one in 24. Rebbi Zeïra and Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Huna; one says, nine *qab*, the other says, eight *qab*³⁸, ⅓ *seah*, for seeding, then the contamination is by a quarter, as expressed in the Tosephta, not for 1 *seah* but for 1⅓ to 1½ *seah* (8 to 9 *qab*). For smaller quantities, one goes by the 1/24 rule; the two statements are complementary, not contradictory..

footnotes:
³⁵ The rule of the first Mishnah covers all seeds which need between four and three seah
³⁶ This principle is also accepted in the Babli, Baba
³⁷ Halakhah 1, Notes 22–24
³⁸ If one only needs 2 qab


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:1:10
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:1:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/2:1:10)

תִּשְׁעָה וַעֲשָׂרָה מַהוּ שֶׁיִּצְטָרְפוּ. אִיתָא חֲמִי תִּשְׁעָה וּשְׁלֹשָׁה מִצְטָרְפִין. תִּשְׁעָה וַעֲשָׂרָה לֹא כָּל שֶׁכֵּן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Do nine and ten join together³⁹ are contaminated by a quarter of seeds which need two *qab*. Does this rule extend to seeds that need 10 *qab*? The answer is, since 3 *qab* go by the quarter rule, and 9 *qab* go by the same rule, the difference between 9 and 10, a mere 10% from above, is not large enough to change the rules. Hence, if seeds which need 9 or 10 *qab* contaminate seeds which need one *seah*, they are measured by 9/24 = ⅜ *qab* per *seah* of the main seed. In the opinion of R. Simson, if half of the contamination is by seeds which need 9 *qab*, this half is measured by 9/24, the other half by 10/24. (Maimonides does not mention these rules in his Code.)? Come and see, nine and three come together, so much more nine and ten!

footnotes:
³⁹ It was stated that seeds which need 8 or 9 qab


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:1:11
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:1:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/2:1:11)

רִבִּי אָבִין וְרִבִּי חֲנִינָה תְּרַוֵּיהוֹן אָמְרִין סְאָה חוֹלֶקֶת בֵּינֵיהוֹן וְרוֹבַע סְאָה אָסוּר בִּשְׁלֹשֶׁת קַבִּין וְרוֹבַע שְׁלֹשֶׁת קַבִּין אָסוּר בִּסְאָה. רוֹבַע סְאָה אָסוּר בְּתִשְׁעָת קַבִּין וְרוֹבַע תִּשְׁעַת קַבִּין אֲסוּרִין בִּסְאָה. שְׁלֹשֶׁת רְבָעִים שֶׁל פִּשְׁתָּן אוֹסְרִין בִּסְאָה. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָא. אֲתַר דִּזְרַע רוֹבַע דְּחִיטִּין זְרַע תְּלָתָא רוֹבָעִין דְּכִיתָּן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Abin and Rebbi Ḥanina both say that a split *seah* is between them⁴⁰. A quarter *seah* may prohibit three *qab*⁴¹ is half of three *qab*, not 1 in 24. The explanation is that if some plants need 6 *seah* of seeds for a *bet seah*, then they contaminate in 6÷24 = .25 *seah*, even if the main seed is one that needs only half a *seah* to cover a bet *seah*. All other examples follow the same pattern and are really superfluous., and a quarter of three *qab* may prohibit a *seah*⁴² = 3 *seah* per *bet seah*.. A quarter *seah* may prohibit nine *qab*⁴³ per bet *seah*, the contaminated seed is standard., and a quarter of nine *qab* may prohibit a *seah*⁴⁴ per *bet seah*.. Three quarters of flax seed prohibit a *seah*. How is this? On a plot on which one sows one quarter of wheat, one sows three quarters of flax seed.

footnotes:
⁴⁰ The difference between the Sages and Rebbi Simeon is whether wheat grain is the standard by which everything is measured or whether every kind has its own standard. The examples given all go by the rule of R. Simeon.
⁴¹ A quarter seah
⁴² Here the contaminating seed needs 18 qab
⁴³ The contaminating seed needs 4 seah
⁴⁴ The contaminating seed needs 6 seah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:2:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/2:2:1)

**משנה:** הָיְתָה שָׂדֵהוּ זְרוּעָה חִטִּים וְנִמְלַךְ לְזוֹרְעָהּ שְׂעוֹרִים יַמְתִּין לָהּ עַד שֶׁיַּתְלִיעַ וְיוֹפֵךְ וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִזְרַע. אִם צָמְחָה לֹא יֹאמַר אֶזְרַע וְאַחַר כָּךְ אוֹפֵךְ. אֶלָּא הוֹפֵךְ וְאַחַר כָּךְ זוֹרֵעַ. כַּמָּה יְהִי חָרוּשׁ כְּתַלְמֵי הָרְבִיעָה. אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יְשַׁיֵיר רוֹבַע לְבֵית סְאָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If his field was sown with wheat and he changes his mind to sow it with barley, he should wait until it gets wormy⁴⁵ 2:13) applies the Mishnah only to freshly sown grain, but the mention of dry fields in the Halakhah does not seem to support that position., then⁴⁶ 2:13) interprets ויופך to mean “or he turns it over.” His argument seems to be that waiting until the worms eat the grain is not mentioned in the later parts of the Mishnah. he turns it over⁴⁶ 2:13) interprets ויופך to mean “or he turns it over.” His argument seems to be that waiting until the worms eat the grain is not mentioned in the later parts of the Mishnah. and after that he may sow. If it is sprouting, he should not say, I am going to sow and then turn it over, but he turns it over and then he sows. How deep does he have to plough? Like furrows for the rainy season⁴⁸. Abba Shaul says, so that there should not remain a quarter for a *bet seah*⁴⁹.

footnotes:
⁴⁵ The seeds, or the grain fallen to the ground, are seen to attract worms. If the grains are from the harvest in the dry season, one has to wait longer. Maimonides (Kilaim
⁴⁶ R. Abraham ben David (Maimonides, Kilaim
⁴⁶ R. Abraham ben David (Maimonides, Kilaim
⁴⁸ Coarse furrows made so that the autumn rains should penetrate the soil, not the second ploughing of straight and parallel furrows for sowing.
⁴⁹ He may leave 1/24 of the surface area unploughed, following the rule established in the first two Mishnaiot.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:2:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:2:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/2:2:2)

**הלכה:** עַד כַּמָּה הִיא מַזְרָעַת עַד כְּדֵי שֶׁתְּהֵא בָאָרֶץ שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים בִּמְקוֹם הַטִּינָּא אֲבָל לֹא בִּמְקוֹם הַגְּרִיד בְּעָיָא הִיא יָתֵר. וְתַנֵּי כֵּן מִקְצַת הַיּוֹם כְּכוּלּוֹ בִּמְקוֹם הַטִּינָּא וְאִם צִימְּחָה וְהוֹרִיד בְּהֶמְתּוֹ לְתוֹכָהּ וְקִירְטְמָתָהּ הֲרֵי זוּ מוּתֶּרֶת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “⁵⁰ 1:16. How long can it remain sprouting? That it should remain in the ground three days in a muddy place, but in a dry place it needs more [time].” We have stated on that: Part of the day is like an entire day⁵¹ in a muddy place, and if it started growing but he brought his animals and they browsed it clean⁵² it is permitted.

footnotes:
⁵⁰ Tosephta Kilaim
⁵¹ In the Babli, that is an accepted principle in most cases, not only in this particular case.
⁵² Biblical Hebrew כרסם, Arabic قرصم, קרצם.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:2:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:2:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/2:2:3)

מַה טַעְמָא דְּרַבָּנִין. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁנָּתַן דַּעְתּוֹ לַחֲרוֹשׁ אֲפִילוּ לֹא רָצַף. תַנֵּי. אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר אֵין מְחַיְיבִין אוֹתוֹ לִהְיוֹת חוֹרֵשׁ דַּק אֶלָּא כְּתַלְמֵי הָרְבִיעָה. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר זְנַב הַסּוּס הָיְתָה נִקְרֵאת כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא סוֹף עֲפָרָהּ שֶׁל זוֹ נוֹגֵעַ בְּזוֹ וְסוֹף עֲפָרָהּ שֶׁל זוֹ נוֹגֵעַ בְּזוֹ. מַה טַעְמָא דְּאַבָּא שָׁאוּל מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁהִתְחִיל בְּרוֹבַע דַּיּיוֹ. מַה אַבָּא שָׁאוּל כְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי כְּרַבָּנִין הוּא דְּרַבָּנִין אָמְרֵי מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁנָּתַן דַּעְתּוֹ לַחֲרוֹשׁ אֲפִילוּ לֹא רָצַף. אָבַּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁהִתְחִיל דַּעְתּוֹ בְּרוֹבַע דַּיּיוֹ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר צָרִיךְ לְהַשְׁלִים אֶת כָּל הָרוֹבַע.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
What is the reason of the rabbis? Because he intended to plough, even if it is not covering⁵³. It was stated: Abba Shaul said, “one does not oblige him to plough finely, only like the furrows of the rainy season. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, it used to be called ‘horse tail,’ so that the end of dust of any one furrow touch that of the next one.”⁵⁴1:17. The position of Abba Shaul here is that of the anonymous Tanna there. Rabban Gamliel notes that one has to plough only half the ground; the other half then is covered by the earth thrown up in ploughing. What is the reason of Abba Shaul? Since he started, it is enough up to a quarter⁵⁵ of contamination is acceptable by Mishnah 1.. Does Abba Shaul hold with Rebbi Yose? He is with the rabbis, for the rabbis said, because he intended to plough, even if it is not covering. Abba Shaul says, because he started intentionally to plough, it is enough up to a quarter. Rebbi Yose said, he must finish that entire quarter⁵⁷.

footnotes:
⁵³ In modern Hebrew, one would translate “not continuous.” However, the image here is that of a floor tiling that does not cover the entire floor (a stone-covered floor is רצפה, “tiled.”)
⁵⁴ Tosephta Kilaim
⁵⁵ A quarter qab
⁵⁷ The meaning of סומך “to lean on” was studied by J. N. Epstein, ,מבוא לנוסח המשנה 2nd ed. (Jerusalem/Tel Aviv 1964) p. 446.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:3:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:3:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/2:3:1)

**משנה:** זְרוּעָה וְנִמְלַךְ לִיטְעָהּ לֹא יֹאמַר אֶטַּע וְאַחַר כָּךְ אוֹפֵךְ. אֶלָּא הוֹפֵךְ וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹטֵעַ. נְטוּעָה וְנִמְלַךְ לְזוֹרְעָהּ לֹא יֹאמַר אֶזְרַע וְאַחַר כָּךְ אַשָּׁרֵשׁ. אֶלָּא מְשָׁרֵשׁ וְאַחַר כָּךְ זוֹרֵעַ. אִם רָצָה גּוֹמֵם עַד פָּחוֹת מִטֶּפַח וְזוֹרֵעַ וְאַחַר כָּךְ מְשָׁרֵשׁ. הָיתָה שָׂדֵהוּ זְרוּעָה קַנֵּבִּס אוֹ לוּף לֹא יְהֵא זוֹרֵעַ וּבָא עַל גַּבֵּיהֶן שֶׁאֵינָן עוֹשִׂין אֶלָּא לִשְלֹשׁ שָׁנִים. תְּבוּאָה שֶׁעָלוּ בָהּ סְפִיחֵי אִסָּטִיס וְכֵן מָקוֹם הַגְּרָנוֹת שֶׁעָלוּ בָהֶן מִינִין הַרְבֶּה וְכֵן תִּלְתָּן שֶׁהֶעֱלָת מִינֵי עֲשָׂבִים אֵין מְחַיְיבִין אוֹתוֹ לְנַכֵּשׁ. וְאִם נִיכֵּשׁ אוֹ כִיסַּח אוֹמֵר לוֹ עֲקוֹר אֶת הַכֹּל חוּץ מִמִּין אֶחָד.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** [If the field was] sown and he decided to plant, he should not say, I shall plant and then I shall turn over, but he shall turn over and then plant. [If it was] planted and he decided to sow, he should not say, I shall sow and then I shall uproot, but he should uproot and then sow. If he wishes, he cuts down to less than a hand-breadth, plants, and then takes out the roots.
If his field was sown with hemp or arum⁶⁹, Mishnah 6:9., one should not sow on it because they produce all of three years⁷⁰. A field of hemp cannot be used for another crop the next year unless all hemp roots are taken out..
One is not required to weed grain in which there appeared aftergrowth of indigo, or the threshing floor on which many kinds are appearing⁷¹, or fenugreek in which grasses appeared⁷². But if he weeded or cut, one says to him, uproot everything except one kind.

footnotes:
⁶⁹ See Peak
⁷⁰ The next paragraph (next Mishnah in the Mishnah part of the Yerushalmi) will explain that, in general, aftergrowth may be disregarded. But if a kind is known to produce commercially valuable aftergrowth, even if no new seeds were provided, then this is to be considered as a continued crop and any other kind on that field is kilaim
⁷¹ They never were sown; this is growth from the grains which remained from the different kinds that were threshed at that floor.
⁷² Fenugreek is an expensive spice and medicinal plant with tiny seeds which is cultivated only on plots the size of a garden bed. Since the plants are of such high value, weeding has to be done with the utmost care.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:3:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:3:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/2:3:2)

**הלכה:** תַּנֵּי סוֹמְכִין עוֹמָרִין בְּצַד גְּפָנִים. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי הָדָא אָמְרָה שֶׁאָסוּר לִיטַּע בְּצַד קָמָה יְבֵישָׁה גֶּפֶן יָבֵשׁ. מַהוּ לִזְרֹעַ בְּצַד גְּפָנִים יְבֵישׁוֹת. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא גֶּפֶן שֶׁיָּבְשָׁה אֲסוּרָה וְאֵינָהּ מְקַדֶּשֶׁת. וְאָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזְר דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר אָמַר אֲפִילוּ גֶּפֶן הַצֶּמֶר אָסוּר וְאֵינוֹ מְקַדֵּשׁ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** It was stated: One may put sheaves next⁵⁷ to dried-up vines. Rebbi Yose said, that means that one may not plant a dry vine next to dry standing grain⁵⁸. May one sow next to dry vines? Let us hear from the following⁵⁹:“A dried-up vine is forbidden but does not sanctify⁶⁰. 22:9 declares that grain growing in a vineyard sanctifies both the grain and the vines. This means that it acquires a status similar to sacrifices; all profane use of it is forbidden. But since it is not a sacrifice, it has to be burned. In tractate *Kilaim*, “sanctified” means “it must be destroyed by burning.” *Kilaim* not involving vines are sinful but not sanctified..” Rebbi Eleazar said, this is the opinion of Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr said⁵⁹, even cotton⁶¹ is forbidden but does not sanctify.

footnotes:
⁵⁷ The meaning of סומך “to lean on” was studied by J. N. Epstein, ,מבוא לנוסח המשנה 2nd ed. (Jerusalem/Tel Aviv 1964) p. 446.
⁵⁸ Since only sheaves, bundles of cut grain, may lean on dry vines, it follows that dry, standing grain must be separated even from dried-up vines.
⁵⁹ Mishnah 7:2.
⁶⁰ Deut
⁵⁹ Mishnah 7:2.
⁶¹ Determination of Maimonides and R. Simson, see Mishnah 7:2. Cotton is not food but cottonseed is.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:3:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:3:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/2:3:3)

הָדָא אָמְרָה שֶׁמוּתָּר לִזְרֹעַ בְּצַד גְּפָנִים יְבֵישׁוֹת וְאִם צָמְחוּ מוּתָּרוֹת לְשֶׁעָבַר וַאֲסוּרוֹת לְעָתִיד לָבוֹא. כְּהָדָא רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה גָּם כְּרָמַיָיא אֲמַר לְאָרִיסֵיהּ פּוּק זְרַע. מִן דִּזְרַע צָמְחִין. אֲמַר לֵיהּ פּוּק חֲצוֹד. מִן דַּחֲצָד אַרְטְבִין אֲמַר לֵיהּ פּוּק סְמַךְ. רִבִּי זְעִירָא בָּעֵי עַד כְּדוֹן כְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה שֶׁהוּא אָמַר לְדַעַת גְּמוּרָה. שְׁאָר בְּנֵי אָדָם שֶׁאֵינָן אוֹמְרִין לְדַעַת גְּמוּרָה. חָזַר וְאָמַר אֲפִילוּ רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה אֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי מַרְאִית הָעַיִן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
That⁶² means that one may sow next to dry vines and “when they produce leaves again, the past is permitted and the future prohibited.⁶³ 1:18. There is added: “If he reduced the stumps to less than a hand-breadth in height, but when he returned he found new vine leaves over the growing grain, the past is permitted but the future forbidden. He removes any kind he chooses and keeps the other kind.”” Like that of Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah⁶⁴ who cut down his vines and told his sharecropper, go and sow! After he had sown, they⁶⁵ started to grow leaves. He said to him, go and cut⁶⁶! After he had cut, they rotted; he said to him, go and sow close up⁶⁷. Rebbi Zeīra asked: Is that only for Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah, for he said it in full knowledge; what about common people who do not have full knowledge? He returned and said, even Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah said it only because of the bad appearance⁶⁸.

footnotes:
⁶² The last sentence of the Mishnah, that one may cut down, plant, and only then uproot.
⁶³ Tosephta Kilaim
⁶⁴ A Tanna of the Fifth generation, student of R. Simeon ben Ioḥai, from Kefar Akko.
⁶⁵ The stumps of the vines.
⁶⁶ Harvest the unripe grain for fodder.
⁶⁷ Rotting vine stumps are certain not to produce fruit; they can be disregarded.
⁶⁸ As long as the vine stumps do not produce blossoms, the prohibition is purely rabbinical and not universally accepted.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:3:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:3:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/2:3:4)

תְּנַיי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ הָיוּ מְלַקְּטִין עֲשָׂבִים מִכָּל מָקוֹם חוּץ מִשְּׂדֵה תִּלְתָּן. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר נַחְמָן בְּשֶׁזְּרָעָהּ לְעָמִיר הִיא מַתְנִיתָא. וְהָא תַנִּינָן וְכֵן תִּלְתָּן שֶׁהֶעֱלָת מִינֵי עֲשָׂבִים אֵין מְחַיְיבִין אוֹתוֹ לְנַכֵּשׁ. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם גַּרְמֵיהּ בְּשֶׁהֶעֱלָת לְזֶרַע. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי וְכִי לֹא בָא יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לְפָרֵשׁ אֶלָּא לְעוֹבְרֵי עֲבֵירָה. עָבַר עֲבֵירָה אָסוּר מִשּׁוּם גֶּזֶל. לֹא עָבַר עֲבֵירָה מוּתָּר מִשּׁוּם גֶּזֶל הֲוֵי לֹא שַׁנְיָיא הִא שֶׁזְּרָעָהּ לְזֶרַע הִיא שֶׁזְּרָעָהּ לְעָמִיר. וְהָתַנִּינָן וְכֵן תִּלְתָּן שֶׁהֶעֱלָת מִינֵי עֲשָׂבִים אֵין מְחַיְיבִין אוֹתוֹ לְנַכֵּשׁ. אִם אֶת שֶׁדַּעְתּוֹ עֲלֵיהֶן יְחַיְיבוּ אוֹתוֹ לְנַכֵּשׁ. רִבִּי אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי מִיָישָׁא רוֹצֶה הֵן בָּהֶן כְּאִלּוּ עֲקוּרִין וּמוּנָחִין לְפָנָיו. מֵעַתָּה מָצָא כִלְאַיִם בְּכֶרֶם יְהוּ אֲסוּרִין מִשּׁוּם גֶּזֶל שֶׁהוּא רוֹצֶה בָּהֶן כְּאִלּוּ עֲקוּרִין וּמוּנָחִין לְפָנָיו. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי לֹא אָמַר כֵּן אֶלָּא שֶׁבְּסוֹף הוּא רוֹצֶה בָּהֶן כְּאִלּוּ עֲקוּרִין וּמוּנָחִין לְפָנָיו. מֵעַתָּה מָצָא כִלְאַיִם בְּכֶרֶם יְהוּ אֲסוּרִין מִשּׁוּם גֶּזֶל שֶׁבְּסוֹף הוּא רוֹצֶה בָּהֶם כְּאִלּוּ עֲקוּרִין וּמוּנָחִין לְפָנָיו. כָּאן יֵשׁ לוֹ עִם מִי לְהִיכָּנֵס. וְכָאן אֵין לוֹ עִם מִי לְהִיכָּנֵס. רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא בָּעֵי הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ שֶׁהָיָה שָׁם שָׂדֶה אֲחֶרֶת שֶׁל תִּלְתָּן סְמוּכָה לוֹ הֲרֵי יֵשׁ לוֹ עִם מִי לְהִיכָּנֵס. מִילֵּיהוֹן דְּרַבָּנִין פְּלִיגִין. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי זְרִיקָן בְּשֵׁם דְּבֵית רִבִּי יַנַּאי כָּל הַסְּפִחִין מוּתָּרִין חוּץ מִן הָעֹלִין בִּשְׂדֵה בּוּר בִּשְׂדֵה נִיר בִּשְׂדֵה כֶרֶם וְאָמַר חוּץ מִשְׂדֵה תִלְתָּן שֶׁזְּרָעָן לְזֶרַע. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי מִילְתָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מְסַיְיעָא לִי. מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁלָּקַח יְרָקָה שֶׁל גִּינָּה מִן הַגּוֹי. אָתָא וְשָׁאַל לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אָמַר לֵיהּ צֵא וּלְקוֹט וּלְפִי הַשּׁוּק מְכוֹר. הוֹתִיב רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְהָא תַנִּינָן וְכֵן מָקוֹם הַגְּרָנוֹת שֶׁעָלוּ בָהֶן מִינִין הַרְבֶּה. אָמַר לֵיהּ מְקוֹמוֹ מוֹכִיחַ עֲלֵיהּ שֶׁאֵינוֹ רוֹצֵה בְקִיּוּמוֹ. וְיָתְיבִינָא כָּאן אָסוּר מִשּׁוּם גֶּזֶל וְכָאן מוּתָּר מִשּׁוּם גֶּזֶל. הֵיךְ אַתְּ מֵשִׁיבֵינִי דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר מִשּׁוּם גֶּזֶל עִם דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא מוּתָּר מִשּׁוּם גֶּזֶל. כְּהַהִיא דְּאָמַר רִבִּי אִימִּי עֲשִׁירִים הָיוּ בִתְשׁוּבוֹת. אוֹ יָיבֹא כְּהַהִיא דְּאָמַר רִבִּי נָסָא כְּאִינַשׁ דְּאִית בֵּיהּ תְּרֵין טַעֲמִין וְהוּא מֵתִיב חַד מִינְהוֹן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It is a condition of Joshua⁷³ 80b–82a, Yerushalmi *Baba Batra*5:1 (fol. 15a). Since tractate *Neziqin* in the Yerushalmi was edited differently from the rest of the Yerushalmi, the text in Yerushalmi *Baba Batra* is similar to but not identical with the text here. that one may collect grasses everywhere except in a field of fenugreek. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman: The Mishnah deals with him who sowed for sheaves⁷⁴. But did we not state: “One is not required to weed … fenugreek in which grasses appeared?⁷⁵! How can the Mishnah exempt fenugreek from an obligation of weeding?” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in his own name: “When it grew for seeds⁷⁶.” Rebbi Yose said, did Joshua come only to help sinners⁷⁷? If he committed a sin, it is forbidden as robbery⁷⁸, if he did not commit a sin it is permitted in respect to robbery. Hence, there is no difference whether he sowed for seeds or for sheaves⁷⁹. But did we not state: “One is not required to weed … fenugreek in which grasses appeared?” If he intends to use the grasses, one should oblige him to weed! Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Miasha: He would be happy if they were torn out and lying before him⁸⁰. Rebbi Yose did not say so, but in the end he approves that they should be torn out and lying before him⁸¹. But then, if somebody found *kilaim* in a vineyard, they should be forbidden as robbery since in the end he desires that they should be torn out and lie before him⁸² the vineyard must be weeded to ensure the growth of the grapes.! There⁸³, he has the means to bring it in, here he does not have the means to bring it in. Rav Naḥman said that Rebbi Mana asked: Think about it, if he had another field of fenugreek close by, then he has the means to bring it in⁸⁴! The words of the rabbis disagree, since Rebbi Zeriqan said in the name of the House of Yannai: All aftergrowth is forbidden except for that which appears⁸⁵, עולין instead of העלין “the leaves.” There, the three cases are explained. The farmer does not care what grows on a fallow field in crop rotation since everything will be ploughed under. If a field is being prepared for ploughing, aftergrowth will be removed as a matter of priority. In a vineyard, the owner will take out everything that could make his vineyard forbidden. on a fallow field, a field ready to be ploughed under, and a vineyard. He should have added, except for a field of fenugreek sown for the production of seeds! Rebbi Yose said, the words of Rebbi Joḥanan support me. It happened that somebody bought a garden plot of vegetables from a Gentile. He came and asked Rebbi Joḥanan⁸⁶. R. Joḥanan told him that only the future growth is forbidden. Any possible profit from plants growing as *kilaim* is forbidden, but in this case, the buyer could sell the undesirable produce for the full market value., who said to him, go, harvest and sell at the going rate. Rebbi Abbahu objected before Rebbi Joḥanan: Did we not state: “or the threshing place on which many kinds are appearing?⁸⁷ except for one (main) crop. How could R. Joḥanan declare all kinds of produce equally acceptable?” He said to him, that place proves that he does not want them to exist. Could he not have answered, the one is like robbery, the other is permitted with respect to robbery⁸⁸? How can you object based on a scenario where it is forbidden as robbery to a decision in a case which is permitted with respect to robbery? It is as Rebbi Immi said, they were rich in answers⁸⁹. Or it is as Rebbi Nasa said, like a person who has two reasons but he answers only with one of them.

footnotes:
⁷³ Ten categories of public use of private property are attributed to Biblical Joshua, attached as liens to the original distribution of land. The detailed discussion is in Babli Baba Qama
⁷⁴ He wants to sell fenugreek in retail bundles. The buyer can take the seeds as spices anytime he wants and in the meantime store the plants so they will not be lost.
⁷⁵ If he grows fenugreek for sheaves, he can use the grasses to bind the “sheaves” that in reality are thin bundles. The grasses represent a value for him, he wants them there, and the entire crop should be forbidden because of kilaim
⁷⁶ In that case, the grasses are really weeds; they have to be removed before the fenugreek seeds can be taken from the stems.
⁷⁷ Why should one be prohibited to take grasses which should have been weeded and whose existence is proof of a sin?
⁷⁸ Since then the owner is deprived of his material to bind the bundles.
⁷⁹ The Mishnah applies to both cases.
⁸⁰ The entire previous argument is untenable; even if the farmer wants to sell fenugreek in small bundles, the loss because of weeds is much larger than the money or work saved in having the grasses ready as material for tying the bundles.
⁸¹ Even if he wants to sell fenugreek in bundles, he would first have to remove the grasses from the field before harvesting, in order to have a commercially usable crop. However, he wants to preserve them in order to use them to tie the bundles; he does not want to have them treated as ownerless.
⁸² There will be some use for weeds, probably as animal feed, even though without the religious obligation of kilaim
⁸³ The grape harvest is transported in vessels; fenugreek bundles are tied on the “field,” i. e., the garden plot.
⁸⁴ The grasses growing on one plot could also be used for the other.
⁸⁵ Vocalization and translation follows the parallel in Baba Batra
⁸⁶ What to do with the various garden vegetables growing together on the plot in violation of the laws of kilaim
⁸⁷ The objection is not really from this sentence but from the following, that if one starts to remove some of the growth, everything has to be treated as kilaim
⁸⁸ This is R. Yose’s argument, that R. Joḥanan would support his position. If taking grasses from the field of fenugreek were not a case of robbery, the situation here would be totally different since the garden plot certainly is protected by the laws of robbery against taking from it (not grasses, but valuable produce!)
⁸⁹ The argument of R. Yose is invalid; if there are several possible explanations, one is never required to give an exhaustive list of all possibilities; one satisfactory answer is enough.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:4:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:4:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/2:4:1)

**משנה:** הָרוֹצֶה לַעֲשׂוֹת שָׂדֵהוּ מֵשָׁר מֵשָׁר מִכָּל מִין בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים שְׁלֹשָׁה תְלָמִין שֶׁל פָּתִיחַ. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים מְלוֹא הָעוֹל הַשָּׁרוֹנִי. וּקְרוֹבִים דִּבְרֵי אֵלּוּ לִהְיוֹת כְּדִבְרֵי אֵלּוּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If someone wants to make his field into separate garden beds⁹⁰ 3:8), משר applies only to a rectangular garden bed that is not square. A square garden bed is called ערוגה if it is isolated and קרחת if it is part of a field. The latter assertion is difficult to accept, cf. Note 150. One might accept that קרחת applies to congruent rectangular patches but משר to rectangular patches of differing sizes. This seems to be the position of R. Abraham ben David of Posquières. of different kinds, the House of Shammai say, three furrows of the ploughshare, and the House of Hillel say, the width of a Sharon yoke. Both criteria are close to one another⁹¹.

footnotes:
⁹⁰ Borrowed from Aramaic מישרא, parallel Arabic مَشَارَة “plant life”. According to Maimonides in his Code (Kilaim
⁹¹ According to Maimonides, the criterion is that of the minimal distance between beds. According to R. Isaac Simponti, the criterion is that of the minimal size of a garden bed, with only a minimal but orderly separation. The Halakhah can be interpreted both ways; this is the position of R. Simson.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:4:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:4:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/2:4:2)

**הלכה:** רִבִּי זְעִירָא רִבִּי לָעְזָר בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי חִיָיה רוֹבָא עוֹשֶׂה שְׁתֵּי אַמּוֹת עַל שְׁתֵּי אַמּוֹת וּמֵיצַר וְהוֹלֵךְ אֲפִילוּ כָּל שֶׁהוּא. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה הָדָא דְּתֵימַר בַּעֲשׂוּיָה מֵשָׁרִין מֵשָׁרִין אֲבָל בַּעֲשׂוּיָה מֵשָׁר אֶחָד לֹא בְדָא. וָאַתְיָא כַּיי דְּאָמַר רִבִּי יַנַּאי יְכִיל אֲנָא זְרַע חַקְלִי חַמְשִׁין מִינִין עֶשְׂרִים וַחֲמִשָּׁה מִיכָּא וְעֶשְׂרִין וַחֲמִשָּׁה מִיכָּא. אַף בִּשְׁתֵּי שׁוּרוֹת כֵּן. מֵעַתָּה אֲפִילוּ בֵּינוֹ לְבֵין חֲבֵירוֹ מוּתָּר. אַף בְּחוֹרֵבָה כֵּן. אוֹ יָיבֹה כַּיי דְּאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ בְּשֵׁם חִזְקִיָּה רֹאשׁ תּוֹר הַבָּא מֵחוֹרֵבָה מוּתָּר. רִבִּי אוֹמֵר מַתְחִיל בֵּית רוֹבַע וּמֵיצַר וְהוֹלֵךְ עַד שְׁלֹשָׁה תְלָמִין שֶׁל פָּתִיחַ. וְלֵית לֵיהּ לְרִבִּי תְּבוּאָה בִּתְבוּאָה בֵּית רוֹבַע. תַּמָּן בִּמְרוּבַּע וְכָאן בְּמֵישָׁר. וְלֵית לְרַבָּנִין מֵישָׁר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן סוֹף מֵישָׁר לְרִבִּי תְּחִילַּת מֵשָׁר לְרַבָּנִין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Eleazar, in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder: He makes it two by two cubits, but decreases continuously to an arbitrarily small distance⁹² 4:6 explains: “He makes it two by two cubits, but the border can be minimal;” i. e., if the field is subdivided into garden beds, inside between any two beds must be 4 square cubits of fallow land. At the border of the entire field, a border strip must be left empty. That strip has no minimal size (but presumably it must be wide enough to allow the farmer to walk there on his own property.) This interpretation takes מצר as a noun, “border strip,” a word otherwise documented only in the Babli. The translation and R. Simson take the word as a verb, “to narrow,” a usage that is required later in the statement of Rebbi. In addition, the phrase והולך עד “doing something continuously,” is only used in conjunction with transitive verbs.. Rebbi Jonah said, that is, if it is subdivided into garden beds, but if all is one bed, it does not apply. This parallels what Rebbi Yannai said: I may sow my field⁹³ of 50 by 50 cubits. Rebbi Yannay splits the field into two strips, each of length 50 and width 25-ε cubits (ε being a small positive quantity) and reserving two cubits in length for each crop and its border. with fifty kinds, twenty-five here and twenty-five there; this is in two rows. If that is so, would it be permitted even between himself and his neighbor⁹⁴? Or in a dry spot⁹⁵? Then it parallels what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Ḥizqiah: A vertex from a dry spot is permitted! Rebbi said, he starts with an area of *bet rova‘* and narrows it down to three furrows of the ploughshare. Does Rebbi not accept that between grains one needs a *bet rova‘*⁹⁶? That is for a square field⁹⁷, here for a garden bed. Do the rabbis not recognize garden beds? Rebbi Yudan said, the minimal distance for Rebbi is the maximal distance for the rabbis⁹⁸.

footnotes:
⁹² The total area must be four square cubits, but the division into strips is left to the farmer. This interpretation seems required by the question of R. Eleazar in the next paragraph.R. Simson thinks that somewhere there must be an empty space of two by two cubits, otherwise the border strips can be as narrow as one desires. Maimonides in his Commentary and Hilkhot Kilaim
⁹³ The standard field understood in all these Mishnaiot, a bet seah
⁹⁴ This is the case of Mishnah 6.
⁹⁵ This was discussed in Chapter 1, Halakhah 9 (Note 203), as a matter of dispute between Rebbi Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish.
⁹⁶ Stated in Rebbi’s own Mishnah 2:9; it is extremely rare to find Rebbi accepting into the Mishnah anonymous opinions conflicting with his own basic positions.
⁹⁷ Of a minimum size of 2500 square cubits.
⁹⁸ For Rebbi, the width of three furrows is the lower limit of what is acceptable; for the rabbis, the width of three furrows is the upper limit of what is required. So everybody agrees that the separation by three furrows is acceptable under all circumstances.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:4:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:4:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/2:4:3)

רִבִּי לָעְזָר שָׁאַל הָיְתָה שָׂדֶה קְטַנָּה מַהוּ. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא רִבִּי לָעְזָר בַּר שִׁמְעוֹן אַבָּא יוֹסֵי בֶּן יוֹחָנָן אִישׁ יָנוֹחַ אָמַר בִּגְדוֹלָה חֲמִשִּׁים אַמּוֹת. וּבִקְטַנָּה עַל פִּי רוּבָּהּ. מַה אִם אֵילּוּ שֶׁנָּתְנוּ שִׁיעוּר לִגְדוֹלָה לֹא נָתְנוּ שִׁיעוּר לִקְטַנָּה. חֲכָמִים שֶׁלֹּא נָתְנוּ שִׁיעוּר לִגְדוֹלָה לֹא כָּל שֶׁכֵּן שֶׁלֹּא יִתְּנוּ שִׁיעוּר לִקְטַנָּה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Eleazar asked: What are the rules for a small field⁹⁹? Let us hear from the following: “¹⁰⁰ 2:1, 2:4, about the border strips, or furrows, that are required between two fields, either in the situation of the preceding or the present Mishnah. For fields longer than 50 cubits, they do not require that the separation of the fields, by empty strip or by planted flax, be longer than 50 cubits. (Probably, this means that in designating the border by one row of flax, one may not use a furrow longer than 50 cubits, in order to avoid commercially usable flax that would be *kilaim* and make the field forbidden.) The statement about a small field is not in the Tosephta concerned only with fields having at least the standard size.
Abba Yose bar Joḥanan (Hanan) from Yanoaḥ in Upper Galilee, a Tanna of the fifth generation, was a student of R. Meïr and Abba Cohen Bar Dalaiah. Rebbi Eleazar ben Simeon: Abba Yose ben Joḥanan from Yanoaḥ said for a large field 50 cubits, for a small field along most of it.” Since those who specified a measure for a large field did not do so for a small one, the Sages who did not specify a measure for a large field certainly would not specify a measure for a small field.

footnotes:
⁹⁹ Since for a standard field (50 by 50 cubits), the total area of the strips between the garden beds must be four square cubits, what is the required minimum for a field that does not contain the required 2500 square cubits?
¹⁰⁰ Parallel statements appear in Tosephta Kilaim


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:5:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:5:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/2:5:1)

**משנה:** הָיָה רֹאשׁ תּוֹר חִטִּים וְנִכְנַס בְּתוֹךְ שֶׁל שְׂעוֹרִים מוּתָּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא נִרְאֶה כְּסוֹף שָׂדֵהוּ. שֶׁלּוֹ חִטִּים וְשֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ מִין אַחֵר מוּתָּר לִסְמוֹךְ לוֹ מֵאוֹתוֹ הַמִּין. שֶׁלּוֹ חִטִּים וְשֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ חִטִּים מוּתָּר לִסְמוֹךְ לוֹ תֶּלֶם שֶׁל פִּשְׁתָּן וְלֹא תֶּלֶם שֶׁל מִין אַחֵר. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר אֶחָד זֶרַע פִּשְׁתָּן וְאֶחָד כָּל הַמִּינִין. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר אַף בְּאֶמְצַע שָׂדֵהוּ מוּתָּר לִבְדּוֹק בְּתֶלֶם שֶׁל פִּשְׁתָּן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** A vertex of wheat¹⁰¹. 1:11) not by “golden chains” but “golden triangular earrings,” and ראש תור by vertex of a triangle.” R. Simson and R. Isaac Simponti explain that ראש תור really is a Hebrew/Aramaic hybrid and means “ox head”, “trapezoid” as schematical approximation to the shape of an ox head. In the technical sense, ראש תור is applied to any trapezoidal or pentagonal field in which the furrows are not parallel, in particular if the last furrow in a field is not parallel to the other furrows and certainly not to the furrows in the adjacent field. The two explanations are probably identical; usually ראש תור is created if the outermost furrow of a field is not straight but approximately forms the legs of an obtuse triangle, with its vertex touching the other field. (In *Targum Yerushalmi* to *Ex*. 39:10, a direction is called טריגון τρίγωνον “triangle,” meaning an arrowhead pointing in a direction. The identification of directions with triangular features is traditional.) coming close¹⁰² to a field of barley is permitted since it visibly is the end of its field. If someone’s field was sown with wheat and that of his neighbor with another kind, he may have of that kind adjacent to it¹⁰³. If both his and his neighbor’s fields were growing wheat, it is permitted that he have one row of flax adjacent to his, but no other kind¹⁰⁴; everybody will know that this is a boundary marker.. Rebbi Simeon says, either flax or any other kind¹⁰⁵. Rebbi Yose says, even in the middle of his field he may test a row for flax¹⁰⁶..

footnotes:
¹⁰¹ See Chapter 1, Note 202. “vertex” is the interpretation of Maimonides, who translates תורי זהב (Cant
¹⁰² On the basis of both the usage of the Babli and Modern Hebrew, it would seem that one has to translate נכנס by: “enters into.” This cannot be the meaning of the expression here because, at the end of the first paragraph of the Halakhah, a furrow entering into another field is characterized by מובלעת “absorbed into.” Hence, נכנס must mean: “coming closer than permitted by the separation rules but not actually entering the row of growing barley.”
¹⁰³ He may sow in his own field of the kind his neighbor grows and not separate it from his neighbor’s crop by the distance required by the Mishnaiot of this Chapter but only by a minimal strip that would designate the border between two fields of separate owners.
¹⁰⁴ Instead of having an empty strip as boundary marker, he may plant one row of flax to indicate the border. Since one row is much too little to serve as commercial crop, nobody will think that he is raising kilaim
¹⁰⁵ Probably, this applies only to kinds routinely sown on fields, not garden beds, since for the latter one row may yield worthwhile produce.
¹⁰⁶ While the grain is growing, he may test in a short row whether flax will grow there. Since everybody knows that such a small quantity can only be a test, not production for use, it never will look like kilaim


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:5:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:5:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/2:5:2)

**הלכה:** רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ בְּשֵׁם חִזְקִיָּה רֹאשׁ תּוֹר הַבָּא מֵחוֹרֵבָה מוּתָּר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא הָיָה רֹאשׁ תּוֹר הָא רֹאשׁ תּוֹר הַבָּא מֵחוֹרֵבָה אָסוּר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Ḥizqiah: A vertex from a dry spot is permitted! Rebbi Joḥanan said, they stated only: “A vertex of wheat¹⁰⁷;” hence, a vertex that comes from a dry spot is forbidden.

footnotes:
¹⁰⁷ Meaning the case of a well defined field, not an irregularly shaped plot resulting from sowing near a dry spot. (This paragraph may be used to support the interpretation by R. Simson and R. Isaac Simponti of ראש תור).


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:5:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:5:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/2:5:3)

חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בֵּית רוֹבַע וְכָל שֶׁהוּא. אוֹתוֹ כָּל שֶׁהוּא זוֹרֵעַ לְתוֹכוֹ כָּל מִין שֶׁיִּרְצֶה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אֵינוֹ זוֹרֵעַ לְתוֹכוֹ אֶלָּא מִין אֶחָד בִּלְבַד. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא מוֹדֶה רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן שֶׁאִם הָיָה בֵּית רוֹבַע וּמֶחֱצָה שֶׁהוּא זוֹרֵעַ חֲצִי רוֹבַע מִיכָּן וַחֲצִי רוֹבַע מִיכָּן אוֹתוֹ חֲצִי רוֹבַע נִידּוֹן לְכָאן וּלְכָאן. מַתְנִיתָא פְּלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן הָיוּ לוֹ שָׂדוֹת אַחַת זְרוּעָה חִיטִּין וְאַחַת זְרוּעָה שְׂעוֹרִין מוּתָּר לְהָבִיא תֵּבֶן בֵּנְתַיִים וְלִזְרֹעַ אַחַת חִיטָּה וְאַחַת שְׂעוֹרָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַחִיטִּין נִרְאוֹת בְּסוֹף שָׂדֵהוּ שֶׁל חִיטִּין וּשְׂעוֹרִין בְּסוֹף שָׂדֵהוּ שֶׁל שְׂעוֹרִין. מַה עָבַד לָהּ רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. פָּתַר לָהּ כְּרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב. דְּרִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אָמַר אֲפִילוּ חִיטָּה אַחַר חִיטָּה נִכְנֶסֶת לְתוֹךְ שֶׁל שְׂעוֹרִין וּשְׂעוֹרָה אַחַר שְׂעוֹרָה נִכְנֶסֶת לְתוֹךְ חִיטִּין מוּתָּר. מִפּנֵי שֶׁהַחִיטָּה אַחַר חִיטָּה נִכְנֶסֶת לְתוֹךְ שֶׁל שְׂעוֹרִין חיטים וּשְׂעוֹרָה אַחַר שְׂעוֹרָה נִכְנֶסֶת לְתוֹךְ שֶׁל שעורין. אֲבָל אִם הָיְתָה חִיטָּה אַחַת מוּבְלַעַת לְתוֹךְ שֶׁל שְׂעוֹרָה אוֹ שְׂעוֹרָה אַחַת מוּבְלַעַת בְּשֶׁל חִיטִּין הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Ḥizqiah said, if somebody has slightly more than a *bet rova‘*, then in that excess he may sow anything he likes¹⁰⁸. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he may sow in it only one kind. Rebbi Zeïra said, Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that if he had a *bet rova‘* and a half, he may sow half a *bet rova‘* from either side and the last half *bet rova‘* is valid for both sides¹⁰⁹ of separation only for a standard field.. A *baraita* disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “¹¹⁰ 2:1. If he had fields, one sown with wheat and the other sown with barley, he may bring straw¹¹¹ in between and sow one side¹¹² according to all definitions. with wheat and the other with barley because the wheat looks like the end of the wheat field, and the barley like the end of the barley field.” What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with that? He explains it¹¹³ and the corresponding Tosephta follow R. Eliezer ben Jacob; he follows the Sages of the Mishnah. following Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob, for Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob said¹¹⁴ 2:2–3, language close to the quote here.: “Even if wheat after wheat comes close to barley¹¹⁵ as long as the visual impression of the two fields is one of separation., barley after barley comes close to wheat, it is permitted.” For wheat after wheat only comes close to barley (wheat), barley after barley comes close to (barley) [wheat]¹¹⁶ square., but if only one wheat stalk is absorbed into the barley, or one stalk of barley is absorbed into the wheat, then that is forbidden.

footnotes:
¹⁰⁸ Assuming one has a small strip along which the kinds can be sown in linear order, each kind being separated from the other. The discussion here follows the previous disagreement between Ḥizqiah and R. Joḥanan.
¹⁰⁹ The middle half is enough of a separation; one does need a full bet rova‘
¹¹⁰ . A similar text is found in Tosephta Kilaim
¹¹¹ All commentators replace תבן “straw” by תלם “a furrow.” But that substitution is not supported by any manuscript. It is induced by misreading of the Tosephta, where one reads: “He ploughs and brings wheat into the barley field, or barley into the wheat field; this is permitted since the wheat looks like part of the wheat field, the barley like part of the barley field.” Similarly, the statements of R. Eliezer ben Jacob are close to the quote here but not identical. “Ploughing” here certainly means ploughing at least two furrows; so the substitution is not supported.
¹¹² Of the straw-covered middle strip. One certainly cannot permit sowing the two slopes of one and the same furrow with two different kinds; that would constitute kilaim
¹¹³ The baraita
¹¹⁴ Tosephta Kilaim
¹¹⁵ If the second field is not triangular in shape but trapezoidal (or, maybe, even rectangular) there still is no kilaim
¹¹⁶ This now is the explanation of the interpretation of R. Joḥanan. The words in parentheses are in the text and do not make sense, even though they appear in both manuscripts. The word in brackets is inserted as conjecture. The main point is the difference in meaning between “coming close to” and “being absorbed in.” The way Ḥizqiah lets one sow a narrow strip would be classified as one kind being absorbed in the other, at least if the excess area forms a thin strip all around the bet rova‘


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:5:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:5:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/2:5:4)

מַה נָן קַיָימִין. אִם בְּמִתְכַּוֵּין לִבְדּוֹק אֲפִילוּ בְאֶמְצַע שָׂדֵהוּ מוּתָּר. אִם בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִתְכַּוֵּין לִבְדּוֹק לָמָּה לִי זֶרַע פִּשְׁתָּן אֲפִילוּ שְׁאָר כָּל הַמִּינִין. בְּמִתְכַּוֵּין לִבְדּוֹק אֲנָן קַיָימִין. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי לֹא חֲשָׁשׁ לְמַרְאִית הַעַיִן וְרַבָּנִין חָשְׁשׁוּ לְמַרְאִית הָעַיִן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
What are we dealing with¹¹⁷, or they might conclude from his action that one may sow flax in a grain field even as a commercial crop.? If he wants only to test, even in the middle of his field it should be permitted. If he does not intend only to test, why just linseed, and not any other kinds? We deal with the case he wants to test. Rebbi Yose does not worry about bad appearances¹¹⁸; the rabbis worry about bad appearances.

footnotes:
¹¹⁷ This refers to the last sentence in the Mishnah, the statement of Rebbi Yose. If somebody plants with the intention of not harvesting, but only to test the soil, why should the rabbis disagree (on condition that the test plot be clearly delineated)? The answer is that the rabbis are afraid that the neighbors either will suspect the farmer of sowing kilaim
¹¹⁸ Nevertheless, he will never allow testing for another kind of food crop in a field growing food, only an industrial crop.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:5:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:5:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/2:5:5)

רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי זְעִירָא דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אָמַר אֵין אָדָם מַקְדִּישׁ דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ. רַב אָמַר אֵין אָדָם חוֹבֵשׁ דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה אַתְיָא דְּרַב כְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. כְּמַה דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אָמַר אֵין אָדָם מַקְדִּישׁ דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ כֵּן רַב אָמַר אֵין אָדָם חוֹבֵשׁ דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ. בְּרַם כְּרַבָּנִין לֹא אַתְיָא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, it is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, nobody can sanctify property that is not his own¹¹⁹. Rav said, nobody can jail property that is not his own¹²⁰. Rebbi Jonah said, Rav comes out like Rebbi Simeon; just as Rebbi Simeon said, nobody can sanctify property that is not his own; so Rav said, nobody can jail property that is not his own. But it cannot be explained following the Sages.

footnotes:
¹¹⁹ R. Simeon’s (and R. Yose’s) statement is in Mishnah 7:4: “Somebody who draws his vine over another person’s grain, sanctifies the latter and has to pay for it. R. Simeon and R. Yose say, nobody can sanctify property that is not his own.” Similarly, any action of a farmer in his field cannot implicate his neighbor in a sin. Hence, the Mishnah itself must be R. Simeon’s: if no crop of the active farmer A has any influence on that of the passive farmer B, then farmer A’s crop itself cannot be forbidden. R. Simeon’s statement is an explanation of the Mishnah, not a disagreement. But the anonymous rabbis of 7:4 will not agree.
¹²⁰ I. e., make it forbidden to be used. Here and in the following, “to jail” means to have it enclosed from all sides by other produce.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:6:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:6:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/2:6:1)

**משנה:** אֵין סוֹמְכִין לִשְׂדֵה תְבוּאָה חַרְדָּל וַחֲרִיעַ אֲבָל סוֹמְכִין לִשְׂדֵה יְרָקוֹת חַרְדָּל וַחֲרִיעַ. סוֹמֵךְ לְבוּר וּלְנִיר וּלְגָפָה וּלְדֶרֶךְ וּלְגֶדֶר שֶׁהוּא גָבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים וּלְחָרִיץ שֶׁהוּא עָמוֹק עֲשָׂרָה וְרָחַב אַרְבָּעָה וּלְאִילָן שֶׁהוּא מֵיסַךְ עַל הָאָרֶץ וּלְסֶלַע שֶׁהוּא גָבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה וְרָחַב אַרְבָּעָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** One does not sow mustard or saffron close¹²¹ 2:18, that a crop of mustard or saffron surrounding a field of fifty by fifty (i. e., from a single furrow 200 cubits in length) is enough for a domestic crop (a commercial crop of mustard seed is defined in the next Mishnah as needing three *bate rova*‘).
The translation of חריע as saffron (*crocus sativus*) follows Targum *Cant*.,*Arukh*(*s*.*v*. חריע) and Rashi. The Gaonic Commentary to *Ṭahorot* and Maimonides define it as safflower (*carthamus tinctorius*), a red dye. In the Halakhah, חריע is defined as “yellow dye.” to a grain field, but one may sow mustard or saffron close to a vegetable field. One does sow close to a fallow field, a ploughed¹²² field, a closure, a foot path, a fence ten hand-breadths high, a ditch ten¹²³ deep and four wide, a tree giving shade on the ground¹²⁴ to become sanctified and forbidden. For any other crop, it is only necessary that fields or garden beds be clearly distinguished., and a rock ten high and four wide.

footnotes:
¹²¹ Without any bare strip between one crop and the other. As R. Simson notes, the reason for this Mishnah is not explained. The explanation of Maimonides in his Mishnah Commentary is contradicted by the Halakhah. Probably the correct explanation is given by Maimonides in his Code, Kilaim
¹²² A field on which the stubs of the previous harvest have been ploughed under but which has not been sown with a new crop.
¹²³ All measurements given in the masculine are hand-breadths.
¹²⁴ The place under the tree free of superficial roots is not the tree’s domain; hence, it may be used. This excludes vines which go under specially stringent rules because they cause kilaim


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:6:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:6:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/2:6:2)

**הלכה:** מַהוּ חֲרִיעַ מוֹרִיקָא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** What is חריע? Yellow dye.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:6:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:6:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/2:6:3)

כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא אֵין מַקִּיפִין הָא לִסְמוֹךְ סוֹמְכִין. מַתְנִיתִין דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה. דְּתַנֵּי אֵין מַקִּיפִין חַרְדָּל וַחֲרִיעַ אֶלָּא לְחִסִּיּוֹת בִּלְבַד דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר לַכֹּל מַקִּיפִין חַרְדָּל וַחֲרִיעַ חוּץ מִן הַתְּבוּאָה. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר לַכֹּל מַקִּיפִין חַרְדָּל וַחֲרִיעַ. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר עֲרוּגוֹת קְטָנוֹת שֶׁלֹ יֶרֶק מַקִּיפִין אוֹתָן חַרְדָּל וַחֲרִיעַ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
So is the Mishnah: “One does not surround,” hence one may sow close up¹²⁵ 2:5, quoted in the following. On the basis of that correction, J. N. Epstein, and S. Lieberman who follows him, want to explain מקיף by “coming really close, closer than leaning to.” However, since they have to admit that in the statement of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel מקיף means “surround,” it is irrational to accept any other meaning for the other parts of the Tosephta.. Our Mishnah is Rebbi Jehudah’s, as it was stated: “One may surround by mustard or saffron only bulbous vegetables¹²⁶9:5. Etymologically, חסית or חוסית is related to Syriac חסוסא “bulbous.”, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah said, any field one may surround by mustard or saffron except a grain field. Rebbi Simeon said, any field one may surround by mustard or saffron¹²⁷. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, one may surround small vegetable beds by mustard or saffron.”

footnotes:
¹²⁵ For the meaning of סומך “to sow close to another crop”, cf. Note 57. The language of the Mishnah is corrected by a text close to Tosephta Kilaim
¹²⁶ So defined in Tosephta Terumot
¹²⁷ This sentence is not in the Tosephta.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:6:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:6:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/2:6:4)

תַּנֵּי מוּתָּר הוּא אָדָם לִזְרֹעַ בְּתוֹךְ שָׂדֵהוּ שׁוּרָה שֶׁל חַרְדָּל וַחֲרִיעַ וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה אוֹרֶךְ שׁוּרָה אוֹרֶךְ עֶשֶׂר אַמּוֹת וּמֶחֱצָה עַל רוֹחַב מְלוֹאוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שָׂדֶה קְטַנָּה. הָא בִגְדוֹלָה לֹא. אֵי זוֹ הִיא גְדוֹלָה וְאֵי זוֹ הִיא קְטַנָּה. אִם יֵשׁ בֵּין בַּד לְבַד בֵּית רוֹבַע זוֹ הִיא גְדוֹלָה. וְאִם לָאו זוֹ הִיא קְטָנָה. לֵית הָדָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר רֹאשׁ תּוֹר הַבָּא בְּחוֹרֵבָה אָסוּר. תַּמָּן לִזְרָעִין וְכָאן לִירָקוֹת. אַף עַל גַּב דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן פְּלִיג בִּזְרָעִים מוֹדֶה הוּא הָכָא בִּירָקוֹת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It was stated¹²⁸ 2:4 in the name of R. Yose.: “One may sow a row of mustard or saffron in the middle of one’s field on condition to make the row long, a length of 10.5 cubits the entire width.” Rebbi Eleazar said, that applies only to a small field, not to a large one. What is large and what is small? If there is between the two ends a *bet rova‘*, that is large, otherwise it is small. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, for Rebbi Joḥanan said that a vertex that comes from a dry spot is forbidden¹²⁹? There it is for grain, here for vegetables¹³⁰. Even though Rebbi Joḥanan disagrees for grain, he will agree here with respect to vegetables.

footnotes:
¹²⁸ A similar text, but without the condition, is in Tosephta Kilaim
¹²⁹ Hence, in the middle of a field it certainly will be forbidden.
¹³⁰ Whose plants are much larger than the grasses grown for grain.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:6:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:6:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/2:6:5)

גְּרִיד מוּתָּר לִיזְרֹעַ בּוֹ כָּל מִין שֶׁיִּרְצֶה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה שְׁלֹשָׁה בְתוֹךְ שִׁשָּׁה וּשְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁהֵן סְמוּכִין לְגֶדֶר כִּגְרִיד. הָיוּ שְׁלוֹשָׁה בְתוֹךְ שִׁשָּׁה וְאֶחָד חוּץ לְשִׁשָּׁה מֵאַחַר שֶׁהוּצְּלוּ אֵילּוּ אַף זֶה הוּצָּל. הָיוּ שְׁנַיִם בְּתוֹךְ שִׁשָּׁה וְאֶחָד חוּץ לְשִׁשָּׁה. מֵאַחַר שֶׁלֹּא הוּצְּלוּ אֵילּוּ אַף זֶה לֹא הוּצָּל. הָיָה שָׁם גְּרִיד שׁוּרָה וְשׁוּרָה גֶדֶר וְשׁוּרָה חוֹבְשִׁין אֶת הַשּׁוּרָה גַּבֵּי שֶׁל גֶּדֶר בְּשָׂדוֹת. שְׁתֵּי שָׂדוֹת זוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי זוֹ. הָעֶלְיוֹנָה סְמוּכָה לְחָרִיץ. וְהַתַּחְתּוֹנָה סְמוּכָה לְגֶדֶר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
On dry soil¹³¹ but visibly forms another field. one may sow any kind he desires. Rebbi Joḥanan said, only if he uses three of six [hand-breadths]¹³². Three that are close to a fence are like dry land¹³³. If there were three inside six and one outside six¹³⁴, since the former ones were saved, that one also is saved. If only two were inside six and one outside six¹³⁵, since the first ones were not saved, neither is that one. If there was one row dry, one row fence, and another row, one jails the row¹³⁶ by the fence on fields¹³⁷. Two fields¹³⁸, one above the other, the upper one is close to a ditch, the lower one close to a fence.

footnotes:
¹³¹ Hard soil which cannot be ploughed to the depth required for grain and vegetables. Only a few adapted species grow there. Since the ground is different from the surrounding agricultural soil, a different crop is not kilaim
¹³² To make the other crop stand out, a minimal width of the cultivated area is required.
¹³³ The three hand-breadths close to a fence are not usable in a regular way. If they can be added to another three hand-breadths of irregular soil, the conditions for their use for other crops are given.
¹³⁴ Adjacent to the dry spot but outside it. Then the special crop introduced on the dry soil does not have to stop exactly at the border of the dry spot but can exceed it, up to a hand-breadth, presumably to give a more regular shape to the plot sown or planted with the dry crop.
¹³⁵ If the dry soil itself is not used for at least 50%, it cannot be used at all for crops differing from the surrounding one. Hence, even good adjacent soil cannot be used to make up for the deficiency on the dry soil.
¹³⁶ If there was a narrow strip of good soil between the less usable strip along the fence and the less usable strip of dry soil, the good soil is caught in between (“jailed”, cf. Note 120) and cannot be sown with the regular crop but must be used for the same crop planted on the dry strip and along the fence. In addition, the three hand-breadths each along the fence and of dry soil add up to the required minimum of six hand-breadths for separate use, even though they are separated by three hand-breadths of good soil. The good soil is added to the strip along the fence.
¹³⁷ The language is very difficult. Ms. Rome is completely different: גגו של גדר כשרות “the roof of a fence is permitted,” meaning that on the soil forming the top of a stone fence one may plant anything, irrespective of what is growing below. In the Leyden version of the Yerushalmi, the rule is restricted to fields, i. e., to plots that measure at least 50 by 50 cubits.
¹³⁸ The fields are terraced, the upper one bounded at the upside by a ditch, either an irrigation ditch or one to catch rain water, the lower field is bounded below by a stone fence. In that case, both the upper and the lower borders have the status of fences.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:6:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:6:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/2:6:6)

דְּבֵי רִבִּי יַנַּאי אָמְרֵי גֶּדֶר מוּתָּר לִזְרוֹעַ בּוֹ כָּל מִין תּוֹרְבְּכִינָה. וְגֶדֶר יֵשׁ בּוֹ לְהָקֵל וְיֵשׁ בּוֹ לְהַחֲמִיר. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָא פָּחוֹת מִבֵּית רוֹבַע מוּקְרָח בְּתוֹךְ שְׂדֵה תְבוּאָה אָסוּר לִזְרוֹעַ בּוֹ. הִקִּיפוֹ גֶּדֶר מוּתָּר. בֵּית רוֹבַע בְּבִקְעָה מוּתָּר לִזְרֹעַ בּוֹ שְׁנֵי מִינִין. הִקִּיפוֹ גֶּדֶר אָסוּר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
The House of Yannai said, on the fence one may sow all kinds of mixtures¹³⁹. A fence implies leniencies and stringencies. How is this? Less than a *bet rova‘* shaven¹⁴⁰ in a grain field may not be sown¹⁴¹; if surrounded with a fence it may be sown. A *bet rova‘* in open country may be sown with two kinds¹⁴² is enclosed, it does not qualify as a field and must follow the rules of משר.; if surrounded with a fence this is forbidden.

footnotes:
¹³⁹ Root רבך “to mix” (also in Accadic and Arabic.) The statement seems to mean that on top of a stone fence one may sow anything he wants, irrespective of the crops on either side of the fence.
¹⁴⁰ Not empty, but shaven of the surrounding crop. The next Mishnaiot will elaborate this notion. Cf. also Note 150.
¹⁴¹ Sown with a kind different from the one growing around it.
¹⁴² If the clear separation rules established earlier are followed. If the bet rova‘


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:6:7
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:6:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/2:6:7)

גֶּדֶר מַהוּ שֶׁיַּצִּיל אֶת הַזְּרָעִים. גְּרִיד זְרוּעַ מַהוּ שֶׁיַּצִּיל אֶת הַיֶּרֶק. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי זְעִירָא שָׁמַע לָהּ מִן הָדָא. וְסוֹמֵךְ לְשָׁרְשֵׁי אִילָן שֶׁיָּבְשׁוּ. לֹא אָמַר אֶלָּא יָבְשׁוּ הָא לַח אָסוּר. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי שָׁמַע לֵיהּ מִן הָדָא סוֹמֵךְ לְבוּר וּלְנִיר וּלְגָפָה לְדֶרֶךְ וּלְגֶדֶר שֶׁהוּא גָבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים. הָדָא אָמְרָה שֶׁגֶּדֶר זָרוּעַ מַצִּיל אֶת הַזְּרָעִים. אֲפִילוּ תֵימָא וּלְגֶדֶר שֶׁהוּא גָבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים אֵין גֶּדֶר זָרוּעַ מַצִּיל אֶת הַזְּרָעִים. שַׁנְיָיא הִיא הָכָא שֶׁהוּא גֶּדֶר זָרוּעַ וְאֵין גֶּדֶר זָרוּעַ מַצִּיל אֶת הַזְּרָעִים.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Does a fence save grains¹⁴³? Does sown dry land save vegetables? Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeïra understood it from the following¹⁴⁴ 2:5. There it is added that the roots have to be 10 hand-breadths high, corresponding to the minimal size of a separating stone wall. Hence, living roots are not different from a stone wall on which some crop was planted.: “One sows close to dried-up tree roots.” This mentions only dry ones; hence, if they are moist, it is forbidden. Rebbi Yose understood it from the following¹⁴⁵: “One does sow close to a fallow field, a ploughed field, a closure, a foot path, a fence ten hand-breadths high.” That implies that a sown fence saves grains! Even if you accept “fence ten hand-breadths high,” a sown fence does not have to save grains. There is a difference here because the fence is sown and no sown fence saves grains¹⁴⁶.

footnotes:
¹⁴³ The question as it stands makes no sense since the Mishnah states clearly that a fence absolutely separates crops. One has to say that one does not speak of a (wooden) fence but of a stone wall and the question is whether the stone wall loses its status if it is used as a field in itself. (R. Moses Margalit wants to emend the following גריד to גדר and take the next sentence as explaining the meaning of the present one. This is impossible since the text is also supported by the Rome ms. and, as R. Eliahu Fulda notes, dry land is only mentioned to separate vegetables, whose rules are not as strict as those for grains.) One has to take the text here parallel to the following one and interpret “fence” as “stone wall topped by soil on which produce is growing.”
¹⁴⁴ Tosephta Kilaim
¹⁴⁵ Quote from the current Mishnah. Here, “fence” (and also, “closure”) is used without qualification and includes stone walls on which produce is grown.
¹⁴⁶ Since the stone wall carries produce, all separation rules for fields apply; there is no longer any wall in the legal sense once it became a field.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:6:8
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:6:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/2:6:8)

רִבִּי יוּדָן בָּעֵי גְּרִיד וּמֶשֶׁךְ מַהוּ שֶׁיִּצְטָרְפוּ. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָא הָיָה שָׁם מָקוֹם אוֹרֶךְ עֶשֶׂר אַמּוֹת וּמֶחֱצָה עַל רוֹחַב שִׁשָּׁה אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ גְּרִיד. עָשָׂה גְּרִיד מִיכָּן מוּתָּר לִסְמוֹךְ שְׁתֵּי רוּחוֹתָיו.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Judan asked: Do dry land and length add together? How is that? If there was space ten and a half cubits long and six hand-breadths wide¹⁴⁷, one does not have to have dry land¹⁴⁸. If dry land was added on both sides, one may sow close on both sides.

footnotes:
¹⁴⁷ On separate ground in a grain field one may sow a row of vegetables since, as was just stated, dry land only helps for vegetables.
¹⁴⁸ In order to permit the planting. But if dry land is added, one can sow grain close to it. Since the row of vegetables also takes up space, without the dry strip there would not be the required separation of at least three hand-breadths from the grain.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:6:9
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:6:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/2:6:9)

תַּנֵּי רִבִּי יוֹנָתָן בֶּן יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר הָיָה שָׁם סֶלַע אֲרוּכָה עֲשָׂרָה וְרָחַב אַרְבָּעָה מוּתָּר לִסְמוֹךְ לוֹ מִשְׁתֵּי רוּחוֹתֶיהָ. הָיְתָה עֲשָׂרָה עַל עֲשָׂרָה מוּתָּר לִסְמוֹךְ לָה מֵאַרְבַּע רוּחוֹתֶיהָ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It was stated: Rebbi Jonathan ben Yose¹⁴⁹. His statement here refers to the Mishnah, that one may plant different crops at the sides of a rock outcropping that is at least ten hand-breadths high (about a yard). He states that any side of the outcropping at least one yard long forms an absolute barrier for *kilaim*. said, one may sow close to a rock ten hand-breadths long and four hand-breadths wide on both of its sides. If it was ten by ten hand-breadths, one may sow close to it on all four sides.

footnotes:
¹⁴⁹ A Tanna of the fourth generation, student of R. Aqiba, and perhaps also of R. Ismael. He is mentioned only in Tosephta and baraitot


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:7:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:7:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/2:7:1)

**משנה:** הָרוֹצֶה לַעֲשׂוֹת שָׂדֵהוּ קָרַחַת קָרַחַת מִכָּל מִין עוֹשֶׂה עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע קְרָחוֹת לְבֵית סְאָה מִקָּרַחַת בֵּית רוֹבַע וְזוֹרֵעַ בְּתוֹכָהּ כָּל מִין שֶׁיִּרְצֶה. הָיְתָה קָרַחַת אַחַת אוֹ שְׁתַּיִם זוֹרְעָן חַרְדָּל. שָׁלֹשׁ לֹא יִזְרְעֵם חַרְדָּל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא נִרְאֵית כִּשְׂדֵה חַרְדָּל דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִין תֵּשַׁע קְרָחוֹת מוּתָּרוֹת וְעֶשֶׂר אֲסוּרוֹת. רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר אֲפִילוּ כָּל שָׂדֵהוּ בֵּית כּוֹר לֹא יַעֲשֶׂה בְּתוֹכָהּ חוּץ מִקָּרַחַת אַחַת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** He who wants to turn his field into patches¹⁵⁰ contains 24 *rova‘*, each plot will have just the minimal size that allows different seeds to be sown. Since the patches have to be rectangular and equal in shape, on a field of 50 by 50 cubits the sides of the rectangles are 50/4=12.5 by 50/6=8. 3̄ cubits (or 50/3=16.6̄ by 50/8=6.25 cubits.) for all different kinds makes 24 patches per *bet seah*, each patch one *bet rova‘*, and sows in each one any kind that he desires. If there were one or two patches¹⁵¹ each, separated from one another, he may sow both of them with mustard because that is still less than a commercial crop. Three he may not sow because the yield would be enough for a commercial crop and would make the remainder *kilaim*., he may sow them with mustard; three he should not sow because that would look like a mustard field, the words of Rebbi Meïr¹⁵². But the Sages say, nine patches are permitted, ten are forbidden¹⁵³‘ each (squares of √2500/24 = 10.207 cubits edge length) while the black fields in these rows are rectangles of edge lengths 10.207 and 9.69 cubits. In rows 2 and 4, the black fields are squares of a *bet rova*‘, the white fields are rectangles of edge lengths 9.69 and 10.207 cubits. Together, they fill the large square, but only the nine fields selected first may be sown and all others must lie fallow.
According to Maimonides, the number 9 as maximum of patches is a mathematical fact. In the interpretation of R. Simson who admits rectangular patches, 10 patches would be possible but are forbidden. In a 4-by-6 checkerbord, a valid centrally symmetric configuration of 10 patches might contain (1,1) (1,4) (2,2) (3,1) (3,3) (4,2) (4,4) (5,3) (6,1) (6,4). The expression “ten are forbidden” supports R. Simson.. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, even if its field is a *bet kor*¹⁵⁴ = 30 *seah*. 1 *bet kor =*75’000 square cubits, larger than the *bet kor* appearing in cuneiform documents., he should not make in it more than one patch.

footnotes:
¹⁵⁰ Arabic קַרָאח “terrain appropriate for being sown,” used here for equal patches all sown or planted with different kinds. Clearly, R. Meïr cannot require the patches all to be square and equal, since 24 is not a square number. Since a seah
¹⁵¹ A new statement. If an otherwise continuous field has two square excisions of a bet rova‘
¹⁵² The entire Mishnah up to here is R. Meïr’s.
¹⁵³ This is explained in the Halakhah. Maimonides, who insists that a קרחת must be square, takes as model of the 50 by 50 cubits field a five-by-five square checkerboard. All white fields in the first, third, and fifth rows are squares of a bet rova
¹⁵⁴ 1 kor


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:7:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:7:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/2:7:2)

**הלכה:** רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן עַל רֹאשָׁהּ רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר אֲפִילוּ חֲבוּשׁוֹת אֲפִילוּ סְמוּכוֹת. וְרַבָּנִין אָמְרִין וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ לֹא חֲבוּשׁוֹת וְלֹא סְמוּכוֹת. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָא תְּלַת וְתַרְתֵּיי וְחָדָא וְתַרְתֵּיי וְחָדָא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Yasa, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: For the first part, Rebbi Meïr says, even jailed, even adjacent, but the rabbis say, on condition that they were neither jailed nor adjacent¹⁵⁵, even if they are adjacent, i. e., they are joined at an edge, and even if they are jailed at all corners, which means that he permits to use the entire field. The Sages do not disagree that a קרחת must have a minimum size of *bet rova‘*. If the field is divided into equal rectangles, one may imagine that the different rectangles are alternately black and white in checkerboard fashion. Since the rabbis do not permit adjacent rectangles to be sown, the first condition is that only rectangles of the same color are chosen. The second condition is that no chosen rectangle can be surrounded by 4 chosen rectangles. The opinion of Maimonides about the position of the rabbis was explained in the Mishnah. His opinion is difficult to accept, since he does not permit any two fields to touch at all, so the mention of “jailing” is totally redundant. It is therefore better to look for a partition of the 50 by 50 field into 24 equal parts. The rabbis cannot speak about division of the field into squares since their number would have to be either 16 (with 7 chosen squares) or 25 (where 12 chosen squares are possible.) Also, the squares in the second case would be smaller than a *bet rova‘*. If the Sages would follow the division of R. Meïr and cover the field by a 4-by-6 checkerboard, they could accomodate 10 chosen rectangles (fields 1,3,5 in the first row, 2,4,6 in the second, 1,5 in the third, 2,4 in the fourth.) Hence, it seems that the rabbis insist that the area for קרחת should be strictly larger than a *bet rova‘*, and on a 5-by-4 board one may select at most nine (e. g., fields 1,3,5 in row 1; 2,4 in row 2; 1,5 in row 3; 2,4 in row 4.) The area of each plot is then 125 sq. cubits. (Explanation of R. Eliahu Fulda.). How is that done? 3,2,1,2,l¹⁵⁶.

footnotes:
¹⁵⁵ Two rectangular fields may meet one another at a vertex, since each one is ראש תור for the other. “Jailed” means here that a rectangular field forms ראש תור at all four of its vertices. Rebbi Meïr permits to sow rectangular fields, each of the minimum size of bet rova‘
¹⁵⁶ This statement fails in two respects. First, the underlying checkerboard is 5-by-5, allowing only 100 sq. cubits per plot, and second, on such a checkerboard that has 13 white and 12 black fields, one may choose all white fields with the exception of the central one (#3 in row 3), for a total of 12 admissible fields. Hence, this sentence (choosing 3 plots in the first row, 2 in the second, 1 in the third, 2 in the fourth, 1 in the fifth) must be a later addition. Even if one chooses the central element in row three, one still could accomodate 10 plots (1,3,5 in the first row, 2,4 in the second, 3 in the third, 1,5,in the fourth, 2,4 in the fifth).The argument is not part of R. Joḥanan’s statement since it is in Aramaic. R. I. J. Kanievski proposes to read תְּלַת תַּרְתֵּי וְחָדָא תַּרְתֵּיי וְחָדָא, eliminating two conjunctions and translating “three [times] two and one each.” The syntax is very unusual.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:8:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:8:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/2:8:1)

**משנה:** כָּל שֶׁהוּא בְּתוֹךְ בֵּית רוֹבַע עוֹלֶה בְמִידַּת בֵּית רוֹבַע. אֹכֶלֶת הַגֶּפֶן וְהַקֶּבֶר וְהַסֶּלַע עוֹלִין בְּמִידַּת בֵּית רוֹבַע. תְּבוּאָה בִתְבוּאָה בֵּית רוֹבַע יֶרֶק בְּיֶרֶק שִׁשָּׁה טְפָחִים. תְּבוּאָה בְיֶרֶק וְיֶרֶק בִּתְבוּאָה בֵּית רוֹבַע. רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר יֶרֶק בִּתְבוּאָה שִׁשָּׁה טְפָחִים. תְּבוּאָה נוֹטָה עַל גַּבֵּי תְבוּאָה וְיֶרֶק עַל גַּבֵּי יֶרֶק. תְּבוּאָה עַל גַּבֵּי יֶרֶק וְיֶרֶק עַל גַּבֵּי תְבוּאָה. הַכֹּל מוּתָּר חוּץ מִדְּלַעַת יְוָונִית. רִבִּי אוֹמֵר אַף הַקִּישּׁוּת וּפוּל הַמִּצְרִי וְרוֹאֶה אֲנִי אֶת דִּבְרֵיהֶם מִדְּבָרַי.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** Anything that is inside the *bet rova‘* counts for the measurement of *bet rova‘*¹⁵⁷ which must be left uncultivated between two fields. The separating space need not be fallow agricultural land; land which cannot be used for agriculture may be counted since all that is needed is a separation.. The surroundings of a vine¹⁵⁸, a grave, or a rock¹⁵⁹ count for the measurement of *bet rova‘*. Grain and grain need a *bet rova‘*¹⁶⁰. Between two vegetable fields, the space is 1 cubit in linear distance. This adds up to a *bet rova‘* only if the fields are longer than 100 cubits., vegetable and vegetable six hand-breadths. Grain and vegetables, vegetables and grain¹⁶¹ need a *bet rova‘*. Rebbi Eliezer says, vegetable and grain six hand-breadths.
Grain leaning over grain¹⁷⁶ even if sown strictly separately. These must be confined to their own field., vegetable over vegetable, grain over vegetable, vegetable over grain, all is permitted except Greek gourd. Rebbi says, also green melon and Egyptian beans, but I prefer their words over my words¹⁷⁷.

footnotes:
¹⁵⁷ The bet rova‘
¹⁵⁸ The space around a vine that must be left free for tending it. This space must also be kept free of weeds.
¹⁵⁹ A rock outcropping less than 10 hand-breadths high; otherwise it would separate by itself. The same will hold for the space of a fence which does not have the required height.
¹⁶⁰ Between two grain fields, the empty space is determined by a surface area of one bet rova‘
¹⁶¹ Irrespective of which field was there first. These rules apply only to distances between fields; as noted earlier, for a single row of vegetables even the rabbis only ask for a distance of six hand-breadths.
¹⁷⁶ If oats with their soft stalks lean over straight wheat at the border between two fields, that is not bad, as long as the sowing was done correctly. The same is true for all other annual plants grown from seeds, except for Greek gourd having wide leaves and long, crawling stems which enter neighboring fields and appear as kilaim
¹⁷⁷ The Halakhah will explain Rebbi’s argument. One must assume that his statement expresses a family tradition.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:8:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:8:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/2:8:2)

**הלכה:** רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי זְעִירָא לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא אוֹכֶלֶת הַגֶּפֶן הָא גֶּפֶן עַצְמָהּ לֹא. לָמָּה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא אֲסוּרָה בַּהֲנָיָיה. וַהֲרֵי הַקֶּבֶר אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָיה. קֶבֶר אֵין אִיסּוּרוֹ נִיכָּר. וַעֲבוֹדַת הַגֶּפֶן אֵין אֲסוּרָה בַּהֲנָיָיה אֶלָּא כְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל דְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אָמַר אֵין עֲבוֹדָה לְגֶפֶן יְחִידִית. וַהֲרֵי הַקֶּבֶר אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָיה. קֶבֶר אֵין אִיסּוּרוֹ נִיכָּר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: They taught only the surroundings of the vine, hence, not the vine itself¹⁶² forbidden.. Why? Because it is forbidden for usufruct. But is not the grave also forbidden for usufruct? A grave is not recognizable as forbidden¹⁶³. And is the working space of a vine forbidden for usufruct? This follows Rebbi Ismael, since Rebbi Ismael said that a single vine does not have working space¹⁶⁴ would be “sanctified” and forbidden by Biblical decree. This goes against Mishnah 3:8. It follows that for a vineyard the surrounding working area cannot count as separation, since that would allow planting grain in the neighborhood of the vineyard.. But is not the grave forbidden for usufruct? A grave is not recognizable as forbidden.

footnotes:
¹⁶² This must be a dried-up vine; a fruit-bearing vine certainly makes kilaim
¹⁶³ While the remains of the dead are forbidden for any use, the status of the surrounding grave as forbidden is only rabbinical, and if the grave is covered only by a flat stone, as is usual in the Middle East, it is not directly recognizable.
¹⁶⁴ One does not have to give a single vine six hand-breadths outside of the area shadowed by its branches and leaves, in which any kilaim


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:8:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:8:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/2:8:3)

תְּבוּאָה בִתְבוּאָה בֵּית רוֹבַע וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא חֲבוּשָׁה מֵאַרְבַּע רוּחוֹתֶיהָ. רִבִּי זְעִירָא בָּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יָסָא כִּי נָן אָמְרִין הָדָא בִּקְעַת סִימוֹנִיָּא אֵין זוֹרְעִין לְתוֹכָהּ אֶלָּא מִין אֶחָד בִּלְבַד.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“Grain and grain need a *bet rova*‘.” But only if it is not jailed on all four sides¹⁶⁵. Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Yasa: Does this mean that we say that in the ravine of Simonia¹⁶⁶ one may sow only one kind?

footnotes:
¹⁶⁵ A wheat field may not be surrounded by four other grain fields, none of them wheat.
¹⁶⁶ The Biblical Shimron, Semunieh, West of Nazareth. Since in a narrow ravine, the field is surrounded (“jailed”) from all sides, do the walls of the ravine play the role of fields in flat country? The question is not answered.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:8:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:8:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/2:8:4)

מָתִיב לְרִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לְרַבָּנִין כְּמָה דְּאִית לְכוֹן קַל בְּשׁוּרָה וְחוֹמֶר בִּמְרוּבַּע. כֵּן אַשְׁכְּחָן דְּאִית לְרַבָּנִין קַל בְּשׁוּרָה וְחוֹמֶר בִּמְרוּבַּע. כְּהָדָא דְתַנֵּי הָרוֹצֶה לַעֲשׂוֹת שׁוּרָה שֶׁל יֶרֶק לְתוֹךְ שְׂדֵה תְבוּאָה. הֲרֵי זֶה עוֹשֶׂה אוֹרֶךְ שׁוּרָה אוֹרֶךְ עֶשֶׂר אַמּוֹת וּמֶחֱצָה עַל רוֹחַב שִׁשָּׁה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אֵינוֹ זוֹרֵעַ לְתוֹכָהּ אֶלָּא מִין אֶחָד בִּלְבַד. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא מוֹדֶה רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן כְּשֶׁהָיוּ שִׁבְעָה שֶׁהוּא זוֹרֵעַ טֶפַח מִיכָּן וְטֶפַח מִיכָּן אוֹתָן חֲמִשָּׂה נִידּוֹנִין לְכָאן וּלְכָאן. מִן מַה דְּרִבִּי זְעִירָא מָתִיב עַל דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן תַּמָּן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Eliezer objected to the rabbis: Are you not lenient for one row and restrictive for rectangles¹⁶⁸’ for rectangles when you require only three or six hand-breadths for rows, as above in Halakhah 7?? It is so, we find that the rabbis are lenient for one row and restrictive for rectangles, as it was stated: He who wants to make one row of vegetables in a grain field makes a row 10½ cubits long and six hand-breadths wide¹⁶⁹‘ (Note 153). R. Simson wants to take the 10 cubits as standard cubits of 6 hand-breadths each and .5 cubits as half a small cubit of 5 hand-breadths only, in order to get a better approximation. But such an exactness is illusory in agriculture; it is better to err a little on the upside.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, therein he sows only one kind. Rebbi Zeïra said, Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that if it is seven wide he sows one hand-breadth on one side, one on the other side, and the remaining five count for both sides¹⁷⁰, just as Rebbi Zeïra had explained Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion there¹⁷¹‘..

footnotes:
¹⁶⁸ To require a bet rova
¹⁶⁹ He sows in the middle and has half a cubit distance from the field in both directions. The value 10.5 is a practical upper estimate of the edge length of a square containing a bet rova
¹⁷⁰ So that each row of vegetables has six hand-breadths for itself.
¹⁷¹ Halakhah 7, in which R. Zeïra asserted that R. Joḥanan permits the sowing of two rectangles in 1.5 bet rova


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:8:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:8:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/2:8:5)

נָטַע חֲצִי שׁוּרָה וְעָמַד לוֹ וּבִיקֵּשׁ לְהַתְחִיל בְּשׁוּרָה אֲחֶרֶת. רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר אָסוּר אוֹמֵר לוֹ עֲקוֹר אֶת הַשּׁוּרָה אוֹ מַלֵּא אֶת הַשּׁוּרָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Somebody planted half a row, stopped, and wanted to start a second row. Rav Ḥisda said, this is forbidden. One tells him, either tear out that row or finish it.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:8:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:8:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/2:8:6)

רִבִּי יוּדָן אָמַר אִיתְפַּלְּגוּן רִבִּי חִיָיא בַּר בָּא וְרִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק. חַד אָמַר אֲפִילוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה לְתוֹךְ שִׁשָּׁה. וְחָרָנָה אָמַר אֲפִילוּ אֶחָד מִיכָּן וְאֶחָד מִיכָּן וְאֶחָד בְּאֶמְצָע. וְלָא יָדְעִין מָאן אָמַר דָּא וּמָאן אָמַר דָּא. מִן מַה דְאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי רִבִּי חִיָיא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא שָׁם חָרֵבָה. הֲוֵי רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק הוּא דְּאָמַר אֲפִילוּ אֶחָד מִיכָּן וְאֶחָד מִיכָּן וְאֶחָד בְּאֶמְצָע. אִם הָיוּ צְדָדִין רָבִין עַל הֶחָרֵבָה מוּתָּר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Judan said: Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba and Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac disagree. One says, even three in a width of six¹⁷³, the other said, one on one side, the other on the other side, and the third in the middle. We do not know who said what. Since Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Ḥiyya¹⁷⁴ in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, only if there is no dry patch, that means that Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said: One on one side, the other on the other side, and the third in the middle. If the sides were more than the dry patch, it is permitted¹⁷⁵.

footnotes:
¹⁷³ One may not sow anything that does not belong to the field unless one carves out a patch 10.5 by 1 cubits, but once one has that size, and the minimal width of 6 hand-breadths, one may plant there three rows of vegetables, if only one has orderly rows. The other opinion is that the rows must be equally spaced and there must be three hand-breadths between any two rows.
¹⁷⁴ R. Ḥiyya bar Abba. Since he has to say that the rule does not apply if there is a dry patch in the rectangle, he cannot otherwise require that the rows be equally spaced since then the statement would be superfluous. Since he puts the distances between the rows at the discretion of the farmer, he has to add that one may not plan close-up rows in order to avoid a dry patch.
¹⁷⁵ If the strip is wider than six hand-breadths, so that there are six hand-breadths of good soil on any perpendicular to the length of the rows of vegetables, the dry patch is no obstacle.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:8:7
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:8:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/2:8:7)

תַּנֵּי חֲמִשָּׁה דְּבָרִים נֶאֶמְרוּ בִּדְלַעַת יְוָונִית אֵין מְסַכְּכִין אוֹתָהּ עַל גַּבֵּי זְרָעִים. וּמֵבִיאִין אֶת הַטּוּמְאָה וְחוֹצֶצֶת אֶת הַטּוּמְאָה וְעוּקְצָהּ טֶפַח וְאוֹסֶרֶת כָּל שֶׁהוּא. וְהַנּוֹדֵר מִן הַדִּילוּעִין אֵינוֹ אָסוּר אֶלָּא בִדְלַעַת יְוָונִית בִּלְבַד. רִבִּי יוֹנָה בָּעֵי וְלָמָּה לֵית אֲנָן אָמְרִין מֵבִיאָה אֶת הַטּוּמְאָה וְחוֹצֶצֶת אֶת הַטּוּמְאָה תַּרְתֵּי. תַּנֵּי בַּר קַפָּרָא שֶׁבַע. אֵין מְסַכְּכִין אוֹתָהּ עַל גַּבֵּי זְרָעִים וּמֵבִיאָה אֶת הַטּוּמְאָה וְחוֹצֶצֶת אֶת הַטּוּמְאָה וְיָדָהּ טֶפַח וְנוֹתְנִין לָהּ עֲבוֹדָתָהּ וְכִלְאַיִם עִם אֲרָמִית וְכִלְאַיִם עִם הָרְמוּצָה וְלֹא תָנָא אוֹסֶרֶת וְלֹא תָנָא נְדָרִים.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It was stated¹⁷⁸ 1:5.: “Five things were said about Greek gourd: One may not allow it to cover grains¹⁷⁹., it brings impurity and stops impurity¹⁸⁰. 19:14) brings impurity on everything in the house. On the other hand, the roof of the house and anything above it are free from impurity. If the corpse is not in a house, anybody who would step over it would create a temporary tent and hence would become impure. The leaves of the pumpkin act as roof, so that a dead body under part of it would bring impurity to all vessels or people found under any other leaves extending from the same vine. Consequently, a person being above these leaves would not become impure because the roof under him protects him from impurity., its stalk is one hand-breadth¹⁸¹ 1:6., the tiniest amount of it makes forbidden¹⁸² 3:7., and to him who makes a vow not to use pumpkins, only Greek gourd is forbidden.” Rebbi Jonah asked, why do we not count “it brings impurity and stops impurity” as two? Bar Qappara stated seven: “One may not allow it to cover grains, it brings impurity, it stops impurity, its stalk is one hand-breadth, one gives it its working space¹⁸³, it is *kilaim* with Aramean [pumpkin], and *kilaim* with ash pumpkin¹⁸⁴.” He did not state that it makes forbidden or anything about making a vow¹⁸⁵.

footnotes:
¹⁷⁸ Tosephta Kilaim
¹⁷⁹ As explained in the previous Halakhah, its leaves cannot be allowed to grow over other plants because it would look like kilaim
¹⁸⁰ If the leaves of Greek gourd are growing on a trellis, they act as roof. A human corpse in a house (“a tent,” Num
¹⁸¹ Food can become impure, the plant on which it grows cannot. The connection of the fruit to the stem is the stalk; this can still become impure. This rule is found in Mishnah ‘Uqeẓin
¹⁸² If the pumpkin is forbidden for any reason, then even the smallest amount mixed with other food makes all the food forbidden because of its importance. The complete list of vegetables with this property is given in Mishnah ‘Orlah
¹⁸³ In this respect it is like vines, since the working space around it is not counted as empty for the minimum separation of different species.
¹⁸⁴ See Mishnah 1:5.
¹⁸⁵ He disagreed with the statements about these topics.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:8:8
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:8:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/2:8:8)

אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי רִבִּי גַמְלִיאֵל בְּרִבִּי נְפַק לְשׁוּקָא. אֲתוּן שָׁאֲלוּן לֵיהּ סִיכּוּךְ שֶׁאָמְרוּ בְּנוֹגֵעַ. אֲתָא שָׁאַל לְאָבוֹי אֲמַר לֵיהּ סִיכּוּךְ שֶׁאָמְרוּ בְּנוֹגֵעַ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה רִבִּי הִלֵּל בֵּירִבִּי וַולֶס נְפַק לְשׁוּקָא. אֲתוּן וְשָׁאֲלוּן לֵיהּ סִיכּוּךְ שֶׁאָמְרוּ בְּנוֹגֵעַ. אֲתָא שָׁאַל לְאָבוֹי אֲמַר לֵיהּ סִיכּוּךְ שֶׁאָמְרוּ בְּנוֹגֵעַ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Gamliel, the son of Rebbi, went to the market¹⁸⁶. They came and asked him whether the roofing they mentioned¹⁸⁷ only if the leaves actually touch the other produce, or whether it is also *kilaim* if the plani stretches out on a high trellis. The answer is, *kilaim* only applies in the first case. referred to touching. He went and asked his father, who told him that the roofing they mentioned referred to touching. Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Hillel ben Rebbi Vales went to the market. They came and asked him whether the roofing they mentioned referred to touching. He went and asked his father, who told him that the roofing they mentioned referred to touching.

footnotes:
¹⁸⁶ This paragraph is partially in Aramaic since it involves the unlearned.
¹⁸⁷ For Greek gourd, whether it forms kilaim


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:8:9
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 2:8:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/2:8:9)

מַהוּ רוֹאֶה אֲנִי אֶת דִּבְרֵיהֶם מִדְּבָרַי. אָמַר רִבִּי חִינְנָא אִם דְּלַעַת מִצְרִית שֶׁהִיא מְסַכֶּכֶת אָמַר מוּתָּר. קִישׁוּת וּפוּל הַמִּצְרִי לֹא כָּל שֶׁכֵּן. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּא מָרִי לֹא כֵן הֲוָה רִבִּי מָנָא אוֹמֵר. רִבִּי אָמַר כָּל הֵן דְּתַנִּינָן קִישׁוּת וּפוּל הַמִּצְרִי אַף דְּלַעַת מִצְרִית בִּכְלָל. מַהוּ רוֹאֶה אֲנִי אֶת דִּבְרֵיהֶם מִדְּבָרַיי. שֶׁאֵין כּוּלָּן מְסַכְּכִין כִּדְלַעַת יְוָונִית.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
What means “but I prefer their words over my words?” Rebbi Ḥinena said, if Egyptian pumpkin whose leaves form roofs is permitted, green melon and Egyptian beans so much more. Rebbi Abba Mari said, Rebbi Mana did not say so. Rebbi said, all those about which we did state “green melon and Egyptian beans,” also include Egyptian pumpkin. What means “but I prefer their words over my words?” That none of these form roofs like Greek gourd¹⁸⁸.

footnotes:
¹⁸⁸ Their leaves are not as large as those of Greek gourd.