## Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim Chapter 5

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

**משנה:** כֶּרֶם שֶׁחָרֵב אִם יֵשׁ בּוֹ לְלַקֵּט עֶשֶׂר גְּפָנִים לְבֵית סְאָה וּנְטוּעוֹת כְּהִילְכָתָן הֲרֵי זֶה נִקְרָא כֶּרֶם. כֶּרֶם דַּל שֶׁהוּא נָטוּעַ עִרְבּוּבְיָא. אִם יֵשׁ בּוֹ לְכַוֵּין שְׁתַּיִם כְּנֶגֶד שָׁלֹשׁ הֲרֵי זֶה כֶרֶם. וְאִם לָאו אֵינוֹ כֶרֶם. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר הוֹאִיל וְהוּא נִרְאֶה כְתַבְנִית כְּרָמִים הֲרֵי זֶה כֶרֶם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** A dried-up vineyard, if it contains ten producing vines per *bet seah* and they are planted regularly¹, is called vineyard. A poor vineyard, one that is planted irregularly, if in it one can ascertain three parallel to two² is a vineyard, otherwise it is not a vineyard. Rebbi Meïr said, since it has the appearance of vineyards, it is a vineyard.

footnotes:
¹ If the surviving vines are equally spaced in one direction.
² If somewhere in the vineyard one can identify a minimal vineyard following the House of Hillel.


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

**הלכה:** אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן הִיא קָרַחַת הַכֶּרֶם הִיא כֶּרֶם שֶׁחָרֵב. קָרַחַת הַכֶּרֶם מַקְרִיחִין אוֹתוֹ מֵאֶמְצָעִי. כֶּרֶם שֶׁחָרֵב מַקְרִיחִין אוֹתוֹ מִכָּל צְדָדָיו.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** Rebbi Joḥanan said: A bald spot in a vineyard is like a³ vineyard that dried up. One clears the ground of a bald spot in a vineyard in its interior, one clears the ground of a dried-up vineyard on all sides.

footnotes:
³ Not that it is the same thing but that the same rules apply, and one may sow only at a distance of 16 cubits from the nearest vine. Clearing the ground means tearing out the dead vines.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 5:1:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 5:1:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/5:1:3)

רִבִּי זְעִירָא מְחַוִּי לַחֲבֵרַיָּא. תֵּשַׁע שׁוּרִין מִן שׁוּבַע שׁוּבַע. נְסַב שׁוּרָא פָּרָא שׁוּרָא לִשְׁתִי שׁוּרָה פָּרָא שׁוּרָה לְעֵרֶב. נִשְׁתַּיְירוּ שָׁם עֶשְׂרִים גְּפָנִים. נְסַב תַּרְתֵּיי מִיכָּן וְתַרְתֵּיי מִיכָּא חָדָא מִיכָּא וְחָדָא מִיכָּא. נִשְׁתַּיְירוּ שָׁם עֶשֶׂר גְּפָנִים. הָדָא דְתַנִּינָן עֶשֶׂר גְּפָנִים לְבֵית סְאָה נִמְצְאוּ שְׁתַּיִם כְּנֶגֶד שְׁתַּיִם וְאַחַת יוֹצֵא זָנָב. שְׁתַּיִם כְּנֶגֶד שְׁתַּיִם וְאַחַת יוֹצֵא זָנָב. שְׁתַּיִם כְּנֶגֶד שְׁתַּיִם וְאַחַת יוֹצֵא זָנָב. שְׁתַּיִם כְּנֶגֶד שְׁתַּיִם וְאַחַת יוֹצֵא זָנָב.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Zeïra showed to the colleagues: Nine rows of seven each⁵,*y*)-coordinate system in the plane and indicating the vines by the points with integer coordinates, where in each row (“woof”) *x* = 1, 2, …, 7, and the rows are numbered by (“warp”) *y* = 1, 2, …, 9. In all, we have 63 vines. Now, we cross out alternate rows and columns, i. e., we cross out all points with coordinates *x* = 2, 4, 6 and *y* = 2, 4, 6, 8. There remain 5 *y*-coordinates (1,3,5,7,9) for each of the remaining 4 *x*-coordinates (1,3,5,7). Hence, there remain 5×4 = 20 vines.. Take away one next⁶ to another for the warp and one next to another for the woof. There remain 20 vines. Take away two from each side in one direction, one from each side in the other direction⁷ = 1, one has only *y* = 5, for *x* = 3, *y =*3,5,7, for *x* = 5, *y* = 1,3,5,7,9, for *x* = 7, *y* = 5; the total of standing vines is 1 + 3 + 5 + 1 = 10.
FIGURE 5-1 HERE. There remain 10 vines. That is what we have stated: “Ten vines per *bet seah*”. It turns out that there are four times two parallel two and one protrudes as tail⁸.

footnotes:
⁵ He explains the Mishnah by an example. We have a vineyard whose vines are planted 8 cubits apart from one another. This follows from the discussion later (Notes 17,18), but it is understood that one wants to construct a vineyard in which the 16-cubit rules forbid one to sow with a minimum number (10) of vines standing. Hence, the vines must be spaced as far apart as possible and still form a vineyard. In modern language, we make a model of that vineyard by drawing an (x
⁶ Greek παρά.
⁷ On the long sides, one removes the two vines at the corners and the two adjacent ones, leaving only those in positions (1,5) and (7,5). On the short sides, one removes one additional vine each, leaving those in positions (5,1) and (5,9). That means that for x
⁸ From any angle one looks at it, one can always find a minimal vineyard contained in the standing pattern. For example, the standing vines {(1,5) (3,5) (5,5) (3,7) (5,7)} form such a vineyard, as do {(1,5) (3,5) (5,5) (3,3) (5,3)} or {(5,9) (5,7) (5,5) (3,7) (3,5)} or {(5,1) (5,3) (5,5) (3,3) (3,5)} or even {(1,5) (3,7) (5,9) (3,5) (5,7)}. In all, one may identify 8 minimal vineyards. Hence, from all angles, the pattern describes a valid vineyard. (One certainly cannot simply create one large vineyard, three times three vines plus one additional, since the maximum area covered by such a vineyard is only 1532 square cubits.)


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 5:1:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 5:1:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/5:1:4)

אַתְּ רוֹאֶה כִּילּוּ אֲחֶרֶת נְטוּעָה כָּאן. כִּילּוּ אֲחֶרֶת נְטוּעָה כָּאן. כִּילּוּ אֲחֶרֶת נְטוּעָה כָּאן. לִיטַּע כָּאן אֵין אַתְּ יָכוֹל שֶׁהוּא זָנָב וְאֵין זָנָב לְזָנָב. לִיטַּע כָּאן אֵין אַתְּ יָכוֹל שֶׁהוּא זָנָב וְאֵין זָנָב לְזָנָב. לִיטַּע כָּאן אֵין אַתְּ יָכוֹל שֶׁהוּא זָנָב וְאֵין זָנָב לְזָנָב. הָדָא אָמְרָה שֶׁאֵין זָנָב לְכֶרֶם גָּדוֹל. הָדָא פְשִׁיטָא שְׁאֵילָתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בָּר זְמִינָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אַתְּ רוֹאֶה כִּילּוּ אֲחֶרֶת נְטוּעָה כָּאן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
One assumes that⁹ another [vine] was planted there, for all four sides¹⁰(2500 square cubits) as required by the Mishnah unless one reduces the distances between the vines.. One cannot actually plant on any of the four sides because it would form a tail and there is no tail for a tail. This implies that there is no tail for a large vineyard, which gives a simple answer to the question of Rebbi Yose ben Zabida in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: one considers as if another [vine] was planted there¹¹.

footnotes:
⁹ כילו is a contracted form of כְּאִילּוּ.
¹⁰ Since R. Zeïra explains the Mishnah according to R. Joḥanan, one has to follow the latter’s opinion in Halakhah 4:6 that the area covered by a minimal vineyard is not the trapezoid defined by the segments containing, respectively, two and three vines, but the smallest rectangle containing the trapezoid, adding an imaginary third vine in the second row. In our case, one cannot actually have these vines added, because that would immediately generate three rows of three vines each, which define a large vineyard for which the rule of tail does not apply. Then the question arises of how to compute the area of the remaining vineyard. This will be dealt with in the next paragraph where it is shown that one cannot have exactly a bet seah
¹¹ In Halakhah 4:6, R. Yose bar Zemina in the name of R. Joḥanan had a statement, about which R. Jonah asked whether minimal vineyards can be combined to form a large vineyard. The answer given here is that one does not add the imaginary vines to form a theoretical large vineyard.


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

נִמְצְאוּ שִׁשִּׁים וְאַרְבַּע עַל אַרְבָּעִים וּשְׁמוֹנֶה. נְסַב תַּרְתֵּי מִיכָּא וִיהַב לוֹן הָכָא נִמְצְאוּ אַרְבָּעִים וּשְׁמוֹנֶה עַל אַרְבָּעִים וּשְׁמוֹנֶה. חַד בֵּינַיי עֲקַר חַד בֵּינַיי וְהַב חַד [קָרֵחַ] שֵׁשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה עַל שֵׁשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה עֲבוֹדָתוֹ בִשְׁמוֹנֶה אַמּוֹת. מַה אַתְּ עֲבַד לָהּ הוּא וַעֲבוֹדָתוֹ לְתוֹךְ בֵּית סְאָה. אוֹ חוּץ לַעֲבוֹדָתוֹ. אִין תַּעַבְדִּינָהּ הוּא וַעֲבוֹדָתוֹ בְּתוֹךְ בֵּית סְאָה אַשְׁכָּח חָסֵר תְּלַת מֵאָוָון וְאַרְבָּעִין וּתְמָנְיָא. וְאִין תַּעַבְדִּינָהּ חוּץ לַעֲבוֹדָתוֹ. אַשְׁכָּח יֶתֶר מֵאַרְבַּע מֵאָוָון וְחַמְשִׁין וְתַרְתֵּיי. אִין תֵּימַר כְּמִי פְלָגוֹת בִּיחִידִיּוֹת הֵן אִין תֵּימַר בְּרוֹצֵף לֹא תַנִּינָן אֶלָּא עֶשֶׂר גְּפָנִים לְבֵית סְאָה. הֲוֵי לֹא מָצֵי תַנַּיָיהּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It turns out to be 64 by 48¹³. Since we have removed the corners, we have to remove some of the area; the problem is to do it in a uniform way to end up with 2500 square cubits. {According to Samuel in Halakhah 4:6, the kite-shaped quadrilateral defined by the extremal vines in R. Zeïra’s design has an area of only 1536 square cubits. Hence, Samuel’s opinion may be disregarded.}. Take two from here and put them there, that turns out to be 48 by 48¹⁴. Take out one in between, one in between, and make a bald spot 16 by 16 that can be tended by eight cubits¹⁵. How do you treat it¹⁶ is the area defined by the standing vines or whether it includes the strip of 4 cubits all around the vineyard for tending the vineyard.? Itself and the area to tend it within a *bet seah*, or without the area to tend it? If you take it with the area to tend it within the *bet seah*, then 348 are missing¹⁷ = 2048 + 832 + 8π = 2880 + 8π. Even if one uses the approximation π ≅ 3, *A* = 2500 + 404 and not *A* = 2500 + 348 as asserted. It is impossible to account for the missing 56 square cubits.
On the other hand, the number 452 in the next sentence is certainly correct and both mss. have 348 here; emendation is impossible. All we can do is discover a possible way of computing the area, keeping in mind that in computations of this kind one suppresses fractions at the end. It seems that here the boundary strip is only three cubits wide except near where real vines are standing. Let *h* be the width of the boundary strip. Then the computation of the area of the boundary strip is done in five steps.Since the perimeter of the figure is 224 (all measures in cubits), the strip along the sides except for the convex corners is A1 = 224h-4h2 since the convex corners are counted twice in the first term.On the top and bottom edges in fig. 2 are two real vines, both of which have to be enclosed in a circular domain of radius 4. Let*q* = (16-*h*²)
and
α = arctan *h/q*.
Then the center angle of the sector outside the strip is
φ = π - 2α;
the area to be added is
*A*2 = 32φ - 2*hq*.
FIGURE 5-3 HEREAt the two vines in position (5,1) and (5,5), one adds two semicircles of radius 4 minus two isosceles right triangles of sides h, for*A*3 = 32π - 2*h*².
FIGURE 5-4 HEREAt the four concave corners with real vines, one has to add quarter disks and subtract the parts covered by the strip wide h. The half-angle of the sector outside the strip is β = π/4 - α. This yields*A*4 = 128β - 64sin α (cos α - sin α).. If you take it without the area to tend it, there is an excess of 45218. You might say, they are separated as single ones¹⁹. You might say, they are closer together²⁰: we have stated only “10 per *bet seah*;” you could not state that.

footnotes:
¹³ One has to take the stems of the vines included in the eight cubits distance from one to the next, otherwise one could sow a row of vegetables between the rows of vines. Then the row of originally nine vines has a total length of 64 cubits and that of seven vines one of 48 cubits (Note 5). Since 64 × 48 = 3072, the area is 572 square cubits larger than the 2500 square cubits of a bet seah
¹⁴ If, for example, one moves the vine at position (5,1) to (1,3), (7,3) to (1,7), and completes the rectangle, one has an area that falls 196 square cubits short of the required 2500.
¹⁵ The distance between two vines now is 16 cubits since every second vine was removed. Even according to him who in the preceding Mishnah treated a dried-up vineyard more severely than a newly planted one, one could think of removing two squares of 16 by 16 in the interior of the vineyard. But that would leave one with 3072 - 2×256 = 2560 square cubits, an area that is still too large.
¹⁶ Before continuing to compute, we have to settle the question whether the bet seah
¹⁷ This number is difficult to explain. All commentators change the numerical value to agree with their computation. All we can do is understand the problem. The basis of the argument is the computation underlying the next sentence. There it is established that the area of the vineyard in R. Zeïra’s example is cross-shaped (fig. 2), formed from the rectangle of sides 64 and 48 by excising corner squares of area 16×16, of area 2048 square cubits.FIGURE 5-2 HEREThe strip of width 4 around it, not counting the corners, has area (64+48) ×2×4 = 896 square cubits. Of these four are concave corners that are counted twice, hence, one has to remove 4 times 16, for a total area of 832 square cubits. It is questionable whether one has to fill out the 90° circular sectors around the virtual vines but one has to add two 90° circular sectors of radius 4 at the two vines on the border of the vineyard. Hence, the total area in question here is A
¹⁹ Since the scheme of R. Zeïra does not work out to produce 10 vines on exactly 2500 square cubits, we have to conclude that the 10 vines are isolated in the field. Then, each vine has 250 square cubits around it, which means that it is situated in the center of a square of edge √250 = 15.81 cubits. This length is also the distance of two vines (or better, the distance of the centers of any two vines) from one another, and this is just below the 16 cubits that would diqualify the field from being a “vineyard”.
²⁰ Than 15.811 cubits.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 5:1:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 5:1:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/5:1:6)

הַכּוֹרֶת מְכוּוָּן וְהַנּוֹף אֵינוֹ מְכוּוָּן הֲרֵי זֶה כֶּרֶם. הַנּוֹף מְכוּוָן וְהַכּוֹרֶת אֵינוֹ מְכוּוָּן אֵינוֹ כֶרֶם. הָיוּ דַקּוֹת וְאֵינָן מְכוּוָּנוֹת [הֵעָבוֹת] וַהֲרֵי הֵן מְכוּוָּנוֹת הֲרֵי זֶה כֶּרֶם. כֵּיצַד הוּא יוֹדֵעַ אִם מְכוּוָּנוֹת הֵן. מֵבִיא חוּט וּמוֹתֵחַ. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי מִבִּפְנִים וְאִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי מִבְּחוּץ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה מָאן דְּאָמַר מִבִּפְנִים בְּתוֹךְ טֶפַח. מָאן דְּאָמַר מִבְּחוּץ צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּהֵא נוֹגֵעַ בָּהֶן. שׁוּרָה הַחִיצוֹנָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ מְכוּוָּנוֹת כְּנֶגֶד הַכָּרְתִּין. נוֹתְנִין לָהּ עֲבוֹדָתָהּ וְזוֹרֵעַ אֶת הַמּוֹתָר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי שֶׁאִם הָיוּ זוֹרְעִין בְתוֹךְ שִׁשָּׁה הַכֹּל אָסוּר. חוּץ לְשִׁשָּׁה הַגְּפָנִים מוּתָּרוֹת וְהַכֶּרֶם אָסוּר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“²¹ 3:4; the text is almost identical with the one given here, including the queer use of the
singular in the first two statements that make sense only if applied to at least three vines. The later statement, commented on by R. Yose, is from a source other than the Tosephta. The trunk is aligned but the top is not aligned, that is a vineyard. The top is aligned but the trunk is not aligned, that is not a vineyard. If they were thin, but when they grow thick they will be aligned, that is a vineyard. How does one know that they are aligned? One brings a rope and stretches it.” Some Tannaïm state: “From within²².” But some Tannaïm state: “From without.” Rebbi Jonah said, he who says “from within,” within a hand-breadth, but he who says “from without” requires that it touches. “If the outer row is not aligned in its trunks, one reserves for it the space to tend it²³ and one may sow the rest.” Rebbi Yose says, if one sows within six hand-breadths all is forbidden; outside of six hand-breadths single vines are permitted but a vineyard is forbidden²⁴.

footnotes:
²¹ Tosephta Kilaim
²² This Tanna requires that the centers of the trunks be aligned. That obviously is not directly measurable; hence, one has to measure from the outside and determine that the centers are within one hand-breadth of the streched rope. The second version, that one puts the rope along the outsides of the vines, is that of the Tosephta.
²³ Since the vines in this case do not form a vineyard and do not belong to the vineyard, they are treated as single vines and have only six hand-breadths reserved for tending. The language of the Tosephta is: “If one [vine] deviates to the inside and one to the outside (i. e., the straight segments connecting the vines form a zig-zag line), that is not a vineyard.”
²⁴ Since a vineyard needs four cubits for tending.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 5:1:7
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 5:1:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/5:1:7)

וְאֵיזֶהוּ כֶרֶם דַּל. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה דַּל בִּגְפָנִים וְעָשִׁיר בַּעֲבוֹדוֹת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
What means “a poor vineyard?²⁵” Rebbi Jonah said, it is poor in vines but rich in tending areas.

footnotes:
²⁵ The one mentioned in the Mishnah. It needs a large tending area since the imaginary vines also belong to the tending area.


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

**משנה:** כֶּרֶם שֶׁהוּא נָטוּעַ עַל פָּחוֹת מֵאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר אֵינוֹ כֶרֶם. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים כֶּרֶם. וְרוֹאִין אֶת הָאֶמְצָעִיּוֹת כִּילּוּ אֵינָן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** A vineyard that is planted less that four cubits apart²⁶, Rebbi Simeon says that it is no vineyard. But the Sages say that it is a vineyard and one disregards the ones in the middle as if nonexistent²⁷ 102b) is that vines planted too close to one another will not bear the best or the most fruit; hence, the vintner might plant too many vines at the start and then, when it becomes clear which vines grow best, he will take out the rest and use as wood and replant the best ones as a regular vineyard. Rebbi Simeon is of the opinion that a vineyard is planted for its yield, so he waits until the vineyard is thinned before he imposes the restrictions of a vineyard. (In the Babli, R. Simeon is interpreted to mean that nobody plants a vineyard with the intention of thinning.) The Sages think that planting for a vineyard makes a vineyard from the start.
It is not quite clear what the minimum distance is; cf. Chapter 4, Note 2. The cubit of 52.6 cm would give 210.4 cm as minimal distance of two vines. R. A. H. Nach defines the hand-breadth as 8.5 cm, which implies that 4 cubits of five hand-breadths each are 170 cm. Modern viticulture works with distances of 135 to 150 cm; one is best off by adopting the minimal interpretation of cubits..

footnotes:
²⁶ This violates standard agricultural practice.
²⁷ If every second vine is disregarded the remaining vines still are less than eight cubits apart and, hence, still form a vineyard. The argument of the Sages (made explicit in Babli Baba Batra


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

**הלכה:** אָמַר לָהֶן רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹתָם שֶׁאַתֶּם אוֹמְרִים רוֹאִין אֶת הָאֶמְצָעִיּוֹת כִּילּוּ אֵינָן. הֲרֵי הֵן עִיקָּרוֹ שֶׁל כֶּרֶם. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה הָדָא אָמְרָה כְשֶׁהָיוּ שֵׁשׁ כְּנֶגֶד שֵׁשׁ. אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ חָמֵשׁ כְּנֶגֶד חָמֵשׁ. כָּל עַמָּא מוֹדֵיי שֶׁהֵן רוֹאִין אֶת הָאֶמְצָעִיּוֹת כִּילּוּ אֵינָן. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא הָדָא דְתֵימַר בְּשֶׁהְיוֹ חָמֵשׁ כְּנֶגֶד חָמֵשׁ. אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ שֵׁשׁ כְּנֶגֶד שֵׁשׁ אִילּוּ אַתְּ רוֹאֶה אֶת הָאֶמְצָעִיּוֹת כִּילּוּ אֵינָן אֵילּוּ אֵילּוּ. מַהִי הָדָא דְתַנִּינָן רוֹאִין אֶת הָאֶמְצָעִיּוֹת כִּילּוּ אֵינָן. אָמַר רִבִּי הוּנָא שֶׁמּוּתָּר לְהַדְלוֹתָן עַל זַרְעוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא הָדָא מְסַיְיעָא לְהַהִיא דְּאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אִם הָיוּ זְרָעִים בְתוֹךְ שִׁשָּׁה הַכֹּל אָסוּר. חוּץ לְשִׁשָּׁה גְּפָנִים מוּתָּרוֹת וְהַכֶּרֶם אָסוּר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** Rebbi Simeon said to them: Those about which you say that one disregards the ones in the middle as if nonexistent, are the essence of the vineyard! Rebbi Ḥananiah²⁹ said, that applies in the case where there are six parallel six. But if there are five parallel five, everybody agrees that one disregards the ones in the middle as if nonexistent. Rebbi Mana said, that means if there are five parallel five. But if there are six parallel six, if you disregard the ones in the middle as if nonexistent, these are like those! What does that mean which we have stated: One disregards the ones in the middle as if nonexistent? Rebbi Huna said, that one is permitted to draw them³⁰ over his seeds. Rebbi Mana said, that supports what Rebbi Yose had said, that if one sows within six hand-breadths all is forbidden, outside of six hand-breadths single vines are permitted³¹ and a vineyard is forbidden

footnotes:
²⁹ R. Ḥananiah and R. Mana disagree about the meaning of the last statement of R. Simeon. According to R. Ḥananiah, in the case of two rows of five vines each, if one disregards any vines numbered 2 and 4 in their rows, one retains two rows of three vines each forming a legal vineyard. But if one has two rows of 6 each, one eliminates either the even or the odd numbered vines; the ones eliminated would also form a vineyard and that is unacceptable in the opinion of R. Simeon. R. Mana has essentially the same argument, only he says that the disagreement concerns the first case, when one would have a vineyard in case one eliminates vines 2 and 4, but not if one eliminates 1, 3, 5. However, in the case of 6 or more vines, one always retains a valid vineyard (and the vines considered nonexistent do not give the possibility of sowing there since the distance from vine to remaining vines is less than 8 cubits.)
³⁰ If the domain at the border of the vineyard is sown with other produce, the shoots of the vines destined to be taken out can be drawn on a trellis that goes sideways over the produce, since the vines will be eliminated before they bear fruit.
³¹ In this interpretation, “single vines” are those planted too close and destined to be removed, even if initially planted in a vineyard pattern.


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

שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר בָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהֵן חֲלוּקִין כָּאן כָּךְ חֲלוּקִין בִּשְׁכוּנַת קְבָרוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה וְלֹא דַמְיָיא תַּמָּן מְרוּוָּחִין וּרְצָופָן יֵשׁ לָהֶן שְׁכוּנַּת קְבָרוֹת. רְצוּפָין וְרְוּוּחִין אֵין עֲלֵיהֶן שְׁכוּנַּת קְבָרוֹת. בְּרַם הָכָא מְרוּוָּחִין וּרְצָפָן בְּמַחְלוֹקֶת. רְצוּפִין וְרִיוְוחָן דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל. בְּרַם הָכָא מַה פְלִיגִין בְּשֶׁבָּא וּמְצָאָן רְצוּפִין. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר אוֹמֵר אֲנִי גַּל נָפַל עֲלֵיהֶן וּרְצָפָן. וְרַבָּנָן אָמַר מְרוּוָּחִין הֵן וּרְצָפָן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan³² 102b. A parallel to the text here is found in Yerushalmi *Nazir* 9:3, fol. 57b. The text there is slightly different from the text here. Since the Rome ms. here supports the text from *Nazir*, and the last sentences here show that both times the paragraphs are a confluence from texts from both sources, it is appropriate to give the full text of the paragraph there:
תמן תנינן כרם שהוא נטוע על פחות מד̇ אמות ר׳ שמעון אומר אינו כרם. וחכמים אומרים כרם. ורואין את האמצעיות כאילו אינן. שמעון בר בא בשם ר׳ יוחנן כשם שהן חלוקין כאן כך הן חולקין בשכונת קברות. א״ר יונה ולא דמייא תמן יש עליהן שכונת קברות. ברם הכא אין עליה שכונת קברות. א״ר יוסי ולא דמייא תמן מרװחין ורצפן במחלוקת. רצופין וריװחן דברי הכל. ברם הכא מהו פליגין. בשבא ומצאן רצופין ר״ש אומר גל נפל עליהן ורצפן. ורבנן אמרי מרװחין היו ורצפן. “There, we have stated: ‘A vineyard which is planted less that four cubits apart, Rebbi Simeon says it is no vineyard. But the Sages say it is a vineyard and one disregards the ones in the middle as if nonexistent.’ Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Just as they disagree here, they disagree about a graveyard. Rebbi Jonah said, one cannot compare these. *There, they form a graveyard, here, they do not form a graveyard. Rebbi Yose said, one cannot compare these. There*, if they were spaced apart and one moved them closer together, that is the disagreement. If they were close and one moved them apart, everybody would agree. But here, what is their disagreement? When one found them close together. Rebbi Simeon said, a landslide fell on them and compressed them. But the Sages say, were they spaced apart and somebody brought them close together?”: Just as they disagree here, they disagree about a graveyard³³9:3: “If somebody stumbles upon a grave (on his property; he did not know that the grave was there), he removes it and its surroundings (the earth that absorbed the decomposed flesh of the deceased, for reburial.) If he found two, he takes them and their surroundings. If he found three and between any two graves is a distance from 4 to 8 cubits, space for the bier and its carriers, that is a graveyard (and cannot be disturbed) and one has to check another adjacent 20 cubits.” In a *baraita*, quoted only in Babli *Bava Batra* 102a, but presupposed in the Yerushalmi, there is a discussion about a group of several graves that are found closer than 4 cubits together. The Sages think that these indicate haphazard burials which do not constitute a graveyard, but R. Simeon holds that one disregards alternate graves and the rest form a graveyard that may not be disturbed. The Babli explains the obvious switch of opinions between R. Simeon and the Sages in that R. Simeon holds that nobody plants vines for thinning, but that in graveyard there sometimes are emergency burials when one cannot observe all necessary distances, whereas the Sages hold that one plants a vineyard with the idea of selecting the best vines, but in a graveyard one never violates common decency by piling grave upon grave.. Rebbi Jonah said, one cannot compare these. There, if graves were spaced apart and one moved them together, they would form a graveyard³⁴. When they were close together and one spaces them apart, that does not make a graveyard³⁵ and the Rome ms., is difficult to accept, since one always may make a new graveyard. What is meant is that the reburial does not retroactively make the burial place a graveyard. In a graveyard, the soil cannot be used for anything but burial. In a row of single graves, any soil that does not belong to the immediate surroundings of the graves may be used for any private purpose.. But here, if they were spaced apart and one moved them closer, that is the disagreement³⁶. If they were close and one moved them apart, everybody would agree³⁷. But here³⁸. This shows that the text in *Nazir* is the original one., what is their disagreement? When one found them close together. Rebbi Simeon said, a landslide fell on them and compressed them³⁹. But the Sages say, were they spaced apart and somebody brought them close together⁴⁰?

footnotes:
³² This discussion is referred to in Babli Baba Batra
³³ This refers to Mishnah Nazir
³⁴ While it is forbidden to do so, if it is done, then according to everybody the sanctity of a graveyard will not be impaired.
³⁵ This sentence, missing in Nazir
³⁶ While this is not mentioned in the Mishnah, it is assumed that the Sages expect the new plantings to be thinned and R. Simeon does not.
³⁷ This will create a vineyard.
³⁸ “Here” is the Mishnah in Nazir
³⁹ Hence, they formed a graveyard whose sanctity cannot be lost.
⁴⁰ This is a most unlikely scenario and can be disregarded. The setting of the Mishnah is the Land of Israel where every grave is expected to be Jewish.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 5:3:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 5:3:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/5:3:1)

**משנה:** חָרִיץ שֶׁהוּא עוֹבֵר בְּכֶרֶם עָמוֹק עֲשָׂרָה וְרוֹחָב אַרְבָּעָה. רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר אִם הָיָה מְפֻלָּשׁ מֵרֹאשׁ הַכֶּרֶם וְעַד סוֹפוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה נִרְאֶה כְבֵין שְׁנֵי כְרָמִים זוֹרְעִין בְּתוֹכוֹ וְאִם לָאו הֲרֵי הוּא כְגַת. הַגַּת שֶׁבְּכֶרֶם עֲמוּקָה עֲשָׂרָה וּרְחָבָה אַרְבָּעָה זוֹרְעִין בְּתוֹכָהּ דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹסְרִין. שׁוֹמֵרָה שֶׁבְּכֶרֶם גָּבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה וּרְחָבָה אַרְבָּעָה זוֹרְעִין בְּתוֹכָהּ וְאִם הָיָה סֵעָר כּוֹתֵשׁ אָסוּר. גֶּפֶן שֶׁהִיא נְטוּעָה בְגַת אוֹ בְנֶקַע נוֹתְנִין לָהּ עֲבוֹדָתָהּ וְזוֹרֵעַ אֶת הַמּוֹתָר. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר אִם אֵין שָׁם אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת לֹא יָבִיא זֶרַע לְשָׁם. וְהַבַּיִת שֶׁבְּכֶרֶם זוֹרְעִין אוֹתוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** A ditch that crosses a vineyard, ten hand-breadths deep and four wide. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob said, if it is open from one side of the vineyard to the opposite side it appears to be between two vineyards; one sows in it. Otherwise, it is like a vat⁴¹. If a vat in the vineyard is ten deep and four wide, one sows in it, the words of Rebbi Eliezer; but the Sages forbid it⁴² 7:2–5.) The Sages forbid planting if the separate low domain is “jailed” by the surrounding vines. In the case of an elevated mound, they consider it “jailed” only if branches of vines reach the top of the mound (R. David ben Zimra on Maimonides, *Kilaim* 7:20).. On a watchman’s mound in a vineyard that is ten hand-breadths high and four wide one may sow; but if hair was pressing down⁴³ 2:3., it is forbidden.
For a vine planted in a depression or in a cleft one allows the area needed for tending it and one sows the rest. Rebbi Yose said, if there are less than four cubits one should not bring seeds there⁵⁶. A house in a vineyard may be sown⁵⁷.

footnotes:
⁴¹ In Biblical Hebrew, גת denotes the winepress. In Mishnaic Hebrew, it may denote a winepress, the time of wine making, and the big vat into which the grape juice flows from the press, as well as any vat of similar size. Here, גת denotes the depression in which grapes are temporarily stored before being transported to the winepress.
⁴² As a matter of principle, a vertical distance of 10 hand-breadths creates a separate domain. If the domain is at least 4 hand-breadths wide, it can stand on its own (Mishnah Eruvin
⁴³ If vine leaves touch the ground on the hill; cf. Mishnah and Halakhah Peah
⁵⁶ Any area that does not contain a square of four by four cubits is not considered a separate domain; it would remain part of the vineyard.
⁵⁷ A place surrounded by four walls and having a dirt floor. The walls separate between anything growing inside and the vines outside; no minimal distance has to be kept between vines and walls.


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

**הלכה:** עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא מְבָרֵיק כְּדֵי הוּא וַעֲבוֹדָתוֹ מִן מַה דְתַנֵּי מוֹדִין חֲכָמִים לְרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב בְּחָרִיץ מְבָרֵיק כְּדֵי הוּא וַעֲבוֹדָתוֹ. הֲוֵי כֵן רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב סָבַר מֵימַר אֲפִילוּ אֵינוֹ מְבָרֵיק כְּדֵי הוּא וַעֲבוֹדָתוֹ. מַה פְלִיגִין כְּשֶׁהָיוּ שְׁתֵּי שׁוּרוֹת מִיכָּן וּשְׁתֵּי שׁוּרוֹת מִיכָּן. אֲבָל אִם הָיְתָה שׁוּרָה אַחַת מִיכָּן וְשׁוּרָה אַחַת מִיכָּן מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁהוּא מַגִּיעַ כְּנֶגֶד שֶׁלֹשׁ גְּפָנִים בָּטֵל הַכֶּרֶם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** Unless it separates⁴⁴ it and the area needed to tend it⁴⁵, since we have stated: “The Sages agree with Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob in the case of a ditch that separates it and the area needed to tend it.” Hence, Rebbi Eliezer thinks that even if it does not separate it from the area needed to tend it. When do they disagree? If there are two rows on each side⁴⁶. But if there was only one row on either side, once it reaches three vines there no longer is a vineyard⁴⁷.

footnotes:
⁴⁴ Reading מבריק as equivalent of Biblical and Babylonian מפרק “disassembles.”
⁴⁵ The Sages require either six hand-breadths or four cubits free of growth on either side of the ditch, to separate the vines and their working spaces from other growth.
⁴⁶ Then on each side, there is a vineyard. But if the ditch separates two single rows, none of which is a vineyard on its own, even the Sages will agree that the ditch deep 10 is enough to separate them.
⁴⁷ If the two (parallel) rows did form a vineyard, if afterwards the ditch is dug and separates six vines, three in each row, they no longer form a vineyard.


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

תַּנֵּי פָּחוֹת מִיכֵּן אָסוּר. דִּלָ כֵן מַה אֲנָן אָמְרִין עֲשָׂרָה אָסוּר תִּשְׁעָה לֹא כָּל שֶׁכֵּן. אֶלָּא מַהוּ פָּחוֹת מִיכֵּן לְרוֹחָב דִּלָ כֵן מַה אֲנָן אָמְרִין יֵעָשֶׂה כְסָתוּם וּתְהֵא מוּתָּר. וְיֵעָשֶׂה כְסָתוּם וִיהֵא מוּתָּר. לֹא כֵן תַּנֵּי שָׁרָשֵׁי פֵּיאָה נִכְנָסִין לְתוֹךְ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת שֶׁבְּכֶרֶם. לְמַטָּה מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ מוּתָּרִין. שַׁנְיָיא הִיא שֶׁאֲוֵיר הַכֶּרֶם מַקִּיף. אָמַר לָהֶן רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אֵין אַתֶּם מוֹדִין לִי שֶׁעָמוֹק כְּגָבוֹהַּ אֶלָּא רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר מוֹדֶה לְרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר בֶּן שֶׁאֲוֵיר הַכֶּרֶם מַקִּיף. מִסְתַּבְּרָא יַעֲקֹב. רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב לֹא יוֹדֵי לְרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר. רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר יוֹדֵי לְרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב שֶׁעָמוֹק כְּגָבוֹהַּ. רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב לֹא יוֹדֵי לְרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר שֶׁאֲוֵיר הַכֶּרֶם מַקִּיף.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It was stated⁴⁸ stating the position of the Sages as opposed to R. Eliezer ben Jacob.: “Less than that is forbidden.” Without it, would we not have said that ten is forbidden, so much more nine? But what does it mean that “less is forbidden?” Would we not say that it becomes as if closed and would be permitted? It should become as if closed and be permitted; was it not stated⁴⁹ 4:11. The passage already was quoted in Halakhah 1:8, cf. Chapter 1, Note 159.: “Roots crossing a symbolic fence and entering within four cubits of a vineyard are permitted if they are deeper than three hand-breadths?” There is a difference, because the air⁵⁰ of the vineyard surrounds⁵¹. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob said to them: Do you not agree that depth is like height⁵²? Only that the air of the vineyard surrounds. It is reasonable to think that Rebbi Eliezer agrees with Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob but Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob does not agree with Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Eliezer agrees with Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob that depth is like height. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob does not agree with Rebbi Eliezer because the air of the vineyard surrounds.

footnotes:
⁴⁸ In a baraita
⁴⁹ Tosephta Kilaim
⁵⁰ Greek ἀήρ.
⁵¹ The Tosephta deals with plants outside the vineyard whose roots penetrate the area reserved for tending the vineyard. Here we are dealing with a ditch inside the vineyard where the rules are stricter.
⁵² Why do the Sages agree that the mound may be sown but the ditch may not? R. Eliezer ben Jacob will forbid sowing on the mound unless it extends from one side of the vineyard to the other. He also disagrees with R. Eliezer (ben Hyrkanos) because the vat does not divide the entire vineyard.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 5:3:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 5:3:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/5:3:4)

רִבִּי חִיָיא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּהֵא שָׁם חָלָל ארבע. אָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק הָדָא דְתֵימַר בַּעֲגוֹלָה אֲבָל בִּמְרוּבָּעַת אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּהֵא שָׁם חָלָל אַרְבָּעָה. רִבִּי חֲלַפְתָּא בֶּן שָׁאוּל אָמַר צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּהֵא שָׁם שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים עָפָר מִלְּמַעֲלָן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי הָדָא דְתֵימַר בַּעֲגוֹלָה אֲבָל בִּמְרוּבָּעַת אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּהֵא שָׁם שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים עָפָר מִלְּמַעֲלָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is necessary that there be an empty space of four hand-breadths. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, that is, if it is round⁵⁴. But if it is square, it does not need an empty space of four hand-breadths. Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul said⁵⁵, it needs three hand-breadths of dirt on top. Rebbi Yose said, that is, if it is round. But if it is square, it does not need three hand-breadths of dirt on top.

footnotes:
⁵⁴ As Maimonides explains, given the direction of the rows of vines, a round mound has the required size only at its diameter, but the lengths of the parallel chords go to zero and there is no separation at the circumference. For the same reason, a circular mound needs a dirt wall around the seeds.
⁵⁵ The Rome ms. reads: “R. Ḥalaphta ben Shaul stated…” Since the author belongs to the generation between Tannaïm and Amoraïm, both readings are acceptable.


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

מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה וְעַד אַרְבָּעָה הִיא מַתְנִיתָא פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה כְסָתוּם. מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה וְעַד אַרְבָּעָה מַשְׁלִים. אַרְבָּעָה זֹרֵעַ מִיָּד.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
The Mishnah deals with the case from three to four [hand-breadths]. With less than three it is closed; from three to four one has to complete, four one may sow immediately⁵⁸ is between three and four hand-breadths, one has to leave on either side an empty strip (4-*w*)/2 hand-breadths wide. If the cleft is four wide, one may sow in it up to the wall; the six hand-breadths used to tend the seeds are only needed as lengthwise separation between the vine and the seeds (R. Simson)..

footnotes:
⁵⁸ The depression or cleft has to be at least three hand-breadths wide, otherwise one may easily step over it and it can be disregarded. If the width w


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 5:3:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 5:3:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/5:3:6)

רִבִּי אָבִין בְּשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל וּבְבָתֵּי כְלָאִים הוּחְבָּאוּ. בַּיִת שְׁמַּחְבִּיאִין בּוֹ אֶת הַכִּלְאַיִם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Abin in the name of Samuel (*Is*. 42:22): “They were hidden in jail houses,” where one hides from *kilaim*⁵⁹. The Talmud identifies the roots כלא “to restrain, keep back” (Arabic كلأ) and כלא (Arabic كلا) “double”. (R. Simson reads: “R. Samuel in the name of R. Abin”; but then it would have to read: R. Samuel R. Abbahu.).

footnotes:
⁵⁹ This refers to the last sentence of the Mishnah, that a house protects from kilaim


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 5:4:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 5:4:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/5:4:1)

**משנה:** הַנּוֹטֵעַ יֶרֶק בְּכֶרֶם אוֹ הַמְּקַיֵים הֲרֵי זֶה מְקַדֵּשׁ אַרְבָּעִים וְחָמֵשׁ גְּפָנִים. אֵימָתַי בִּזְמַן שֶׁהֵן נְטוּעוֹת אַרְבַּע עַל אַרְבַּע אוֹ חָמֵשׁ עַל חָמֵשׁ. הָיוּ נְטוּעוֹת עַל שֵׁשׁ שֵׁשׁ אוֹ עַל שֶׁבַע שֶׁבַע הֲרֵי זֶה מְקַדֵּשׁ שֵׁשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה אָמָּה לְכָל רוּחַ עֲגוֹלוֹת וְלֹא מְרוּבָּעוֹת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** He who plants vegetables in a vineyard or who lets them grow⁶⁰ sanctifies 45 vines. When is this? In case they are planted four four or five five apart. If they were planted six six or seven seven apart, he sanctifies sixteen cubits in every direction, circular but not square⁶¹-axis in the direction of the rows of vines, the *y-* axis perpendicular. The unit of measurement is the cubit. Points with coordinates (4*m*,4*n*) with integer *m*,*n* represent vines. According to Pythagoras, the distance from the origin is 16 if and only if *m*2*+n*2** 16. This means that for *m* = 0, ±1, ±2, *n* = 0, ±1, ±2, ±3, and for *m =* ±3, *n* = 0, ±1, ±2. In all, there are 5·7 + 2·5 = 45 admissible couples (*m*,*n*). This is explained in the Halakhah. There the language is that all acceptable couples are *m*,*n* = 0, ±1, ±2, ±3 except for couples (±3,±3). The case of vines planted 5 apart is not treated; one has to assume that one excludes the vines at points (5*m*,5*n*) for *m*2*+n*2** 25 because vineyards planted 5 apart look similar to those planted 4 apart. (For an opposing opinion in the Tosephta cf. *Tosefta ki-fšuṭah* p. 629.).

footnotes:
⁶⁰ If the edible vegetable grew from wind-borne seeds.
⁶¹ The language of this Mishnah is so involved because of the special rule for a vineyard planted in spaces of five cubits. In general, vegetables can be planted in a vineyard only in a bald spot; according to Mishnah 4:1 that means at a distance of 16 cubits from the next vine. The rule of the Mishnah for vines planted more than 5 cubits apart is just that: In the interior of the circle of radius 16 and centered at the vegetable there may not be any vine.The application of that principle to vines planted 4 apart leads to 45 sanctified vines. One assumes that the vegetable is sown closely around a vine. One takes the stern of that vine as center of a Cartesian coordinate system and takes the x


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

**הלכה:** רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָא אָמַר וְהוּא שֶׁזָּרַע כְנֶגֶד הָאֶמְצָעִית. רִבִּי אָבִין בְּשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל וְהוּא שֶׁתְּהֵא הָאֶמְצָעִי עֲגוֹלָה יֶרֶק. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָא. שׁוּבָע שׁוּרִין מִן שׁוּבָע שׁוּרִין. צֵא מֵהֶן אַרְבַּע גְּפָנִים לְאַרְבַּע זְוִיּוֹת הַכֶּרֶם נִשְׁתַּיְירוּ שָׁם אַרְבָּעִים וְחָמֵשׁ גְּפָנִים. הָדָא הִיא דְתַנִּינָן הֲרֵי [הוּא] מְקַדֵּשׁ אַרְבָּעִים וְחָמֵשׁ גְּפָנִים.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, only if he sowed near the middle vine. Rebbi Abin in the name of Samuel: Only if the middle vine is surrounded by vegetables. How is it computed? Seven rows by seven rows. Subtract from them four vines at the four corners; there are 45 vines remaining. That is what we stated: “He sanctifies 45 vines”⁶².

footnotes:
⁶² All this was explained in Note


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 5:4:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 5:4:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/5:4:3)

אֵימָתַי בִּזְמַן שֶׁהֵן נְטוּעוֹת אַרְבַּע עַל אַרְבַּע אוֹ חָמֵשׁ עִל חָמֵשׁ. הָדָא מְסַיְיעָא לְרִבִּי זְעִירָא דְּרִבִּי זְעִירָא אָמַר שְׁמוֹנֶה חוּץ מִמְּקוֹם כָּרְתּוֹן. הָיוּ נְטוּעוֹת שֵׁשׁ עַל שֵׁשׁ אוֹ שֶׁבַע עַל שֶׁבַע הָדָא מְסַיְיעָא לְרִבִּי לָעְזָר דְּרִבִּי לָעְזָר אָמַר מֵאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת וְעַד שְׁמוֹנֶה אָסוּר וּמְקַדֵּשׁ. מִשְּׁמוֹנֶה וְעַד שֵׁשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה אָסוּר וְאֵינוֹ מְקַדֵּשׁ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“When is this? In case they are planted four four or five five apart.” This supports Rebbi Zeïra, since Rebbi Eleazar⁶³ said: Eight except for the place of the trunks. “If they were planted six six or seven seven apart”, that supports Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar⁶⁴ said: From four cubits to eight, it is forbidden and “sanctifies”, from eight to sixteen it is forbidden but does not “sanctify”.

footnotes:
⁶³ This has to be “R. Zeïra”, cf. Chapter 4, Note 122. If the trunks were counted in the distances, the four vines at distance 16 from the center on the axes would also be forbidden, for a total of 49, not 45.
⁶⁴ In Chapter 4, Halakhah 8 (Note 125), this also is a statement of R. Zeïra. The argument here is that “eight eight” is not mentioned, which implies that vegetables in a vineyard planted eight cubits apart do not “sanctify”.


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

**משנה:** הָרוֹאֶה יֶרֶק בַּכֶּרֶם וְאָמַר כְּשֶׁאַגִּיעַ לוֹ אֲלַקְּטֶנּוּ מוּתָּר. כְּשֶׁאַחְזוֹר אֲלַקְּטֶנּוּ. אִם הוֹסִיף בְּמָאתַיִם אָסוּר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If somebody sees a vegetable in his vineyard and says, when I get to it I shall remove it, that is permitted; when I return I shall remove it, if in the meantime it increased by one twohundredth it is forbidden.


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

**הלכה:** רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא אָמַר בְּפוֹעֵל שָׁנוּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, they taught about the worker⁶⁵.

footnotes:
⁶⁵ “Somebody” mentioned in the Mishnah is not the owner, whose negligence would sanctify vines and vegetable and not just make the vegetable forbidden. It cannot be a stranger whose actions cannot influence the status of the farmer’s goods. Hence, it must refer to the farm hand who works in the vineyard for the proprietor.


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

בַּעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁהוּא עָסוּק בִּמְלַאכְתּוֹ עָשׂוּ אוֹתוֹ כְּפוֹעֵל. בַּעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁקִּיֵים יַרְקוֹת שָׂדֶה בְּכֶרֶם אֲסוּרִין בֵּין לוֹ בֵּין לְאַחֵר. פּוֹעֵל שֶׁקִּיֵים יַרְקוֹת שָׂדֶה בְּכֶרֶם אָסוּר לוֹ וּמוּתָּר לְכָל אָדָם. וְקַשְׁיָא אִם אָסוּר לוֹ יְהֵא אָסוּר לְכָל אָדָם. אִם מוּתָּר לְכָל אָדָם יְהֵא מוּתָּר לוֹ. אֶלָּא כְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דְּאָמַר אֵין אָדָם מַקְדִּישׁ דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֵׁלּוֹ. אַף עַל גַּב דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אָמַר אֵין אָדָם מַקְדִּישׁ דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֵׁלּוֹ. מוֹדֶה הוּא הָכָא שֶׁאָסוּר לוֹ (בְּעָלֶה קָטָן אֶחָד) [בְּלִקְּטָן אַחֵר] אֲבָל אִם לִיקֵּט הוּא אָסוּר בֵּין לוֹ בֵּין לְכָל אָדָם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
They gave the owner occupied with his work the status of a farmhand⁶⁸. If the owner kept field vegetables [growing] in his vineyard, they are forbidden to him and to others. If a farmhand kept field vegetables [growing] in the vineyard, they are forbidden to him but are permitted to everybody else. This is difficult. If they are forbidden to him, they should be forbidden to everybody. If they are permitted to everybody else, they should be permitted to him. It must follow Rebbi Simeon who says that nobody may sanctify anything that is not his own property. Even though Rebbi Simeon says that nobody may sanctify anything that is not his own property, he agrees here that it is forbidden to him if another person harvested it⁶⁹; but if he himself harvested, it is forbidden to him and to everybody else.

footnotes:
⁶⁸ While the rules for the vintner are more strict that those for his employees, that only applies if he is not occupied tending his vineyard.
⁶⁹ This is a fine for his laziness. If he did not remove the vegetable when he should have but returned later, the strict rule of the Mishnah applies.


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

וְאִם הוֹסִיף בְּמָאתַיִם אָסוּר. דְּבֵי רִבִּי יַנַּאי מְשַׁעֲרִין בְּהָדֵין יַרְבּוּזָה. כֵּיצַד הוּא בוֹדֵק. רַב בִּיבִי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי חֲנִינָה לוֹקֵט אֶחָד וּמֵנִיחַ אֶחָד מַה שֶׁזֶּה פּוֹחֵת זֶה מוֹסִיף.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“If it increased by one twohundredth it is forbidden.” Those of the house of Rebbi Yannai estimate by purslain. How does one check? Rav Vivian in the name of Rebbi Ḥaninah: He takes one out and leaves one in [the ground]; what the first one is less, the other did increase.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 5:6:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 5:6:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/5:6:1)

**משנה:** הָיָה עוֹבֵר בַּכֶּרֶם וְנָפְלוּ מִמֶּנּוּ זְרָעִים אוֹ שֶׁיָּצְאוּ עִם הַזְּבָלִים אוֹ עִם הַמַּיִם. הַזּוֹרֵעַ וְסִיעֲרָתוֹ הָרוּחַ לְאַחֲרָיו מוּתָּר. סִיעֲרָתוֹ הָרוּחַ לְפָנָיו. רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר אִם עֲשָׂבִים יוּפָּךְ. וְאִם אָבִיב יִנָּפֵץ. וְאִם הֵבִיאָה דָּגָן יִדָּלֵק.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If somebody was passing through a vineyard and accidentally dropped some seeds, or that seeds were brought there by manure or water, or someone sowed and the wind carried the seeds behind him, all this is permitted⁷⁰. If the wind carried the seeds before him, Rebbi Aqiba says, if they produce greenery it should be plowed under, if they are green stalks, they should be broken, if they produced grain it must be burned⁷¹.

footnotes:
⁷⁰ Unintentional contamination has no effect on the status of the vines.
⁷¹ Since the seeds fall on ground to be worked on in the future, he has to clear the ground. If he is derelict in his duties, the growth will be sanctified.


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

**הלכה:** אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר מַתְנִיתִין בְּעוֹמֵד בִּשְׂדֵה לָבָן וְסִיעֲרָתוֹ הָרוּחַ לִשְׂדֵה כֶרֶם. רִבִּי זְעִירָא בָּעֵי מַה אִיתְאַמָּרַת בְּעוֹמֵד אוֹ אֲפִילוּ עוֹמֵד. אִין תֵּימַר בְּעוֹמֵד בְּלָבָן הָא בִשְׂדֵה כֶרֶם לֹא. אִין תֵּימַר אֲפִילוּ עוֹמֵד הִיא הָדָא הִיא הָדָא. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הַזּוֹרֵעַ וְסִיעֲרָתוֹ הָרוּחַ לַאֲחוֹרָיו מוּתָּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא אוֹנֶס. מַה נָן קַיָימִין אִי בְּעוֹמֵד בִּשְׂדֵה כֶרֶם עוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה וְאַתְּ אָמַר מוּתָּר. אֶלָּא כִּי נָן קַיָימִין בְּעוֹמֵד בִּשְׂדֵה לָבָן וְסִיעֲרָתוֹ הָרוּחַ לִשְׂדֵה כֶרֶם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** Rebbi Eleazar said, our Mishnah speaks of one standing in a grain field while the wind carried the seeds into a vineyard. Rebbi Zeïra inquired⁷²: Was [the Mishnah] speaking about one standing in [a grain field] or even one standing [in a vineyard]? If you say in a grain field, then not in a vineyard. If you say even one standing [in a vineyard] there is no difference. Let us hear from the following⁷³ 3:12. the arguments of R. Zeïra and R. Eleazar are accepted by Maimonides, *Kilaim*5:17.: “Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah said in the name of Rebbi Simeon: If one was sowing and the wind carried the seeds behind him, this is permitted, since it happened by accident.” What are we dealing with? If he stands in the vineyard he is tending it, and you say it is permitted? But we must deal with the case of one standing in a grain field and the wind carried the seeds into a vineyard.

footnotes:
⁷² R. Zeïra shows that the statement of R. Eleazar about the part of the Mishnah dealing with windswept seeds is a logical necessity.
⁷³ Tosephta Kilaim


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 5:6:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 5:6:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/5:6:3)

רִבִּי זְעִירָא רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָא. אִם עֲשָׂבִים יוּפָּךְ הַכֹּל מוּתָּר. אִם אָבִיב יִנָּפֵץ הַקַּשִּׁין מוּתָּרִין וְהַדָּגָן אָסוּר. אִם הֵבִיאָה דָּגָן תִּדָּלֵק הַכֹּל אָסוּר. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר הַכֹּל אָסוּר. מַהוּ הָדָה דְתַנִּינָן אִם עֲשָׂבִים יוּפָּךְ אִם אָבִיב יִנָּפֵץ אִם הֵבִיאָה דָּגָן תִּדָּלֵק. כְּהַהִיא דְתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן הָעָרְלָה וּכְלָאֵי הַכֶּרֶם אֶת שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לִישָׂרֵף יִשָּׂרֵף אֶת שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לִיקָבֵר יִקָּבֵר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: “If they produce greenery it should be plowed under:” all is permitted. “If they are green stalks, they should be broken:” the straw is permitted but the grains are forbidden. “If they produced grain it must be burned:” all is forbidden. Rebbi Joḥanan said, all is forbidden. What does our statement mean, “if they produce greenery it should be plowed under, if they are green stalks, they should be broken, if they produced grain it must be burned”? It parallels what we have stated there⁷⁴ 7:5. There, Rashi in the Babli explains that “what usually is buried” is fluids, “what usually is burned” is produce. This cannot be the position of R. Joḥanan here. Maimonides in his Commentary explains the Mishnah following R. Hoshaia, whose position is easily squared with the Mishnah in *Temurah*, but in his Code (*loc*.*cit*.) he follows R. Joḥanan since it is the position of the Babli that in a disagreement between R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish, practice almost always follows R. Joḥanan. (For *orlah* cf. Note 94).: “*Orlah* and *kilaim* of a vineyard. Anything that usually is buried should be buried. Anything that usually is burned should be burned.”

footnotes:
⁷⁴ Mishnah Temurah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 5:6:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 5:6:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/5:6:4)

רִבִי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אִידִי בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶן לָקִישׁ פְּעָמִים שֶׁהַקַּשִּׁין מוּתָּרִין וְהַדָּגָן אָסוּר. פְּעָמִים שֶׁהַקַּשִּׁין אֲסוּרִין וְהַדָּגָן מוּתָּר. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָא זָרַע בְּהֵיתֵר וְסִיכֵּךְ עַל גַּבָּיו הַקַּשִּׁין מוּתָּרִין וְהַדָּגָן אָסוּר. זָרַע בְּאִיסּוּר וְהֶעֱבִיר אֶת הַסְּכָךְ הַקַּשִּׁין אֲסוּרִין וְהַדָּגָן מוּתָּר. רִבִּי זְעִירָא בָּעֵי נִיחָא הַקַּשִּׁין מוּתָּרִין וְהַדָּגָן אָסוּר. הַקַּשִּׁין אֲסוּרִין וְהַדָּגָן מוּתָּר גָּדַל מִתּוֹךְ אִיסּוּר וְאַתְּ אֲמַר מוּתָּר. רִבִּי זְעִירָא כְדַעְתֵּיהּ. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹנָתָן בָּצֵל שֶׁל כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם שֶׁעֲקָרוֹ וּשְׁתָלוֹ אֲפִילוּ מוֹסִיף כַּמָּה אָסוּר שֶׁאֵין גִּידּוּלֵי אִיסּוּר מַעֲלִין אֶת הָאִיסּוּר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Sometimes, the straw is permitted but the grain is forbidden, and sometimes the straw is forbidden and the grain is permitted. How is that? If his sowing was permitted but later he trained the leaves of a vine over it, the straw is permitted but the grain is forbidden If he sowed where it was forbidden and then removed the overhanging growth, the straw is forbidden but the grain is permitted⁷⁵ were removed. Then the grain is permitted. Similarly, in the first case it is assumed that the vines were drawn over the grain only after the stalks reached their full height, then the stalks grew while permitted and are permitted.. Rebbi Zeïra inquired: It is understandable that the straw would be permitted but the grain forbidden. If the straw should be forbidden and the grain permitted, it grew while forbidden and you say is is permitted? Rebbi Zeïra follows his own opinion, as Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: An onion from *kilaim* in a vineyard that he removed from the soil and planted anew is forbidden even if it increases manifold, since growth of what is forbidden can never justify forbidden produce⁷⁶ were removed. “Justify” here means that there is enough of permitted produce (60, 100, or 200 times the amount of other produce, as the case may be) so that the prohibited produce should be considered negligible. It is asserted here that growth from a forbidden root is never permitted..

footnotes:
⁷⁵ It is assumed that the grain developed only after the kilaim
⁷⁶ Since the onion is a root bulb, the root determines the growth of the plant. Since the root is forbidden, its growth will always be forbidden, even if the greens grow only after the kilaim


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 5:7:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 5:7:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/5:7:1)

**משנה:** הַמְקַיֵים קוֹצִים בַּכֶּרֶם רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר קִידֵּשׁ. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים לֹא קִידֵּשׁ אֶלָּא דָבָר שֶׁכָּמוֹהוּ מְקַיְימִים. הָאִירוֹס וְהַקִּיסּוֹס וְשׁוֹשַׁנַּת הַמֶּלֶךְ וְכָל מִין זְרָעִים אֵינָן כִּלְאַיִם בַּכֶּרֶם. הַקַּנַּבִּס רִבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר אֵינוֹ כִּלְאַיִם. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים כִּלְאַיִם. וְהַקִּינַרָס כִּלְאַיִם בַּכֶּרֶם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If somebody keeps thistles growing in a vineyard, Rebbi Eliezer says he sanctified, but the Sages say only produce apt to be stored sanctifies. Iris⁷⁸, ivy⁷⁹, king’s lily, and all kinds of seed-plants⁸⁰ 15b) declares them to be *kilaim* by rabbinic decree. are not *kilaim* in a vineyard. Hemp⁸¹., Rebbi Tarphon says it is not *kilaim* but the Sages say it is *kilaim*. Artichokes⁸². are *kilaim* in a vineyard.

footnotes:
⁷⁸ Greek ἶρις, -ιδος, ἡ, “iris, orris root”; the root was used to produce an ointment.
⁷⁹ Greek κισσός. One would not expect a plant holy to Osiris and Bacchus in a Jewish vineyard, but its leaves were sometimes used as spice (and possibly in medicine) and the name might also be applied to related kinds of angelica of which both roots and berries were used. |Cf. κίσσινον, τό, name of a plaster (E. G.)]
⁸⁰ Producing inedible seeds. The Babli (Menaḥot
⁸¹ Greek κάνναβις, Latin cannabis
⁸² Greek κινάρα, Modern Greek plural κινάρας (H. L. Fleischer). Since artichoke is an edible thistle, it has to be mentioned as kilaim


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 5:7:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 5:7:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/5:7:2)

**הלכה:** אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר שֶׁכֵּן מְקַיְימִין אוֹתָן לִגְמָלִים בַּעֲרָבִיָּא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** Rabbi Abbahu said, the reason of Rebbi Eliezer is that at some places in Arabia one lets them grow for camels⁸³.

footnotes:
⁸³ See Chapter 1, Note 15.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 5:7:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 5:7:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/5:7:3)

הָאִירוֹס אִירֹסִיה. הִקִּיסּוֹס קִיסּוֹסָא. וְשוֹשַׁנַּת הַמֶּלֶךְ קְרִינוֹן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
ἰρός is אירוסיה. κισσός is קסוסא. King’s lily is κρίνον.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 5:7:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 5:7:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/5:7:4)

הַקָּנִים וְהָאָגִין וְהַוְורֶד וְהָאָטָדִין מִין אִילָן וְאֵינָן כִּלְאַיִם בַּכֶּרֶם. הַשִּׁיפָה וְהַחִיטּוֹן וְהַגֶּמִי וּשְׁאָר כָּל הַגְּדֵילִין בָּאֶפֶר מִין דְּשָׁאִים וְאֵינָן כִּלְאַיִם בַּכֶּרֶם. וְהָתַנֵּי רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה אֵילּוּ הֵן מִינֵי דְּשָׁאִים הַקִּינַרָס וְהַחֲלִמָה וְהַדְּמוּעַ וְהָאָטָד. תַּמָּן לִבְרָכָה וְכַאן לְכִלְאַיִם. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי הָדָא אָמְרָה אֶתְרוֹג אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאַתְּ אוֹמֵר עָלָיו בּוֹרֵא פְרִי הָעֵץ אַתְּ אוֹמֵר עַל הַתְּמוּרָה שֶׁלּוֹ בּוֹרֵא מִינֵי דְּשָׁאִים.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“⁸⁶ 3:15. The next sentence is 3:14 there. The names of the plants appear in great variations, cf. תוספתא כפשוטה pp. 631–635. Reeds, spiny bushes⁸⁷, roses, and way-thorn are trees and not *kilaim* in a vineyard. Reed-mace⁸⁸ 5:5 חשיפה, in Mishnah *Kelim*9:8 שיפה. A kind of reed, in the opinion of I. Löw *Typha angustata*. Rashi in Babli *Sukkah* 20a translates *paille*“straw”., rush⁸⁹ (9:8) defines this as equivalent of Arabic اسل “reeds used to make lances”; the corresponding Arabic verb means “to pierce”., and bulrush, and all other plants growing in ashes are kinds of grasses and not *kilaim* in a vineyard⁹⁰ 5:19), these are not *kilaim* because they are grasses. In the opinion of R. Abraham ben David they are not *kilaim* because they are not collected as staples, but there are kinds of grasses subject to the laws of *kilaim*. The difference seems to be that Maimonides reads here and in the Mishnah ואינן but R. Abraham ben David reads אינן. There is no doubt that trees cannot be *kilaim* in a vineyard since they are not sown..” But did Rebbi Hoshaiah not state⁹¹ 6:1; see there Notes 111–114 for the determination of the plants mentioned.: “The following are the kinds of grasses: artichoke, *ḥalimah*,*demua*, and lycium.” There for benedictions, here for *kilaim*. Rebbi Yose said⁹² 6:1; one has to wonder why it was not placed there after the statement of R. Hoshaiah. R. Yose refers to the statement in *Berakhot* of R. Joshua that the appropriate benediction for edible young palm shoots is “Creator of kinds of grasses” (*loc*.*cit*. Note 110). On this R. Yose notes that the same argument might apply to the soft sprouting parts of citrus that have just formed after the flower has fallen off., this means that while one says the benediction “Creator of the fruit of the tree” for an *etrog*, one says the benediction “Creator of kinds of grasses” for its *tmrz*⁹³ unless the ז is deleted. There are two possible translations of תמור: 1. “A new shoot growing straight up like a date palm”; 2. “A bud looking like a date”, as in Mishnah *Ma‘serot* 4:6. The second definition is preferred by R. Eliahu Fulda and all later commentators; both definitions are consistent with the parallel passage in *Berakhot*. The second meaning might be expressed in the Arabic root ثمر “to bear fruit”..

footnotes:
⁸⁶ Tosephta Kilaim
⁸⁷ In the Tosepha mss. החגין, Arabic حاج، حيج “spiny bush”.
⁸⁸ In the Tosephta and Mishnah Makhširin
⁸⁹ The Gaonic commentary to Mishnah Kelim
⁹⁰ In the opinion of Maimonides (Kilaim
⁹¹ Berakhot
⁹² His statement belongs to Berakhot
⁹³ The word is a hapax


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 5:7:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 5:7:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/5:7:5)

הַצְּלָף בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים כִּלְאַיִם בַּכֶּרֶם וְאֵינוֹ כִלְאַיִם בִּזְרָעִים. בֵּית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים אֵינוֹ כִלְאַיִם לֹא בְכֶרֶם וְלֹא בִזְרָעִים. הַכֹּל מוֹדִין שֶׁהוּא חַיָיב בְּעָרְלָה. תַּנֵי רִבִּי חִינְנָא בַּר פַּפָּא אֶת שֶׁהוּא עוֹלֶה מִגִּזְעוֹ מִין אִילָן מִשָּׁרָשָׁיו מִין יֶרֶק. הָתִיבוּן הֲרֵי אַכְּרוּב הֲרֵי הוּא עוֹלֶה מִגִּזְעוֹ. כָאן בְּוַדַּאי כָּאן בְּסָפֵק.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
The caper bush⁹⁴ 3:17 and Babli *Berakhot*36a. The main place of the paragraph is *Ma‘serot* 4:6, in a discussion of the caper bush.. The House of Shammai say, it is *kilaim* in a vineyard⁹⁵ and those of fruit trees for *orlah*, ao that its fruit is forbidden the first three years after planting (*Lev*. 19:23). but not with grains. The House of Hillel say, it is never *kilaim*, neither in a vineyard nor with grains. Both agree that it is subject to *orlah*. Rebbi Ḥinena bar Papa⁹⁶ 5:5: “R. Ḥama bar ‘Uqba in the name of R. Yose. Anything that grows from both root and stem is a root (a vegetable); from its stem but not from its root it is a tree.” In that formulation, cabbage presents no problem since there is no piece of stem free of leaves. stated: Any plant that branches out from its stem is a tree; from its roots it is a vegetable. They objected: But cabbage forms its leaves from its stem! Here⁹⁷ when it is sure, there when it is doubtful.

footnotes:
⁹⁴ A shortened version, not mentioning grains, is in Tosephta Kilaim
⁹⁵ The House of Shammai are unsure whether capers are trees or vegetables and therefore apply the stringency of vegetables for kilaim
⁹⁶ He is R. Ḥanina bar Pappai. His statement appears in another version (another redaction) in Baba Batra
⁹⁷ The caper bush. Since for cabbage, the lower end of the stem is the lower end of the leaves, it is questionable whether the lowest leaves come from stem or root.