MISHNAH: Wheat and zěwānîn¹., tare, darnel grass.” E. and H. Hareubeni, in a memoir dedicated to זונין (Tarbiẓ 10, 1939, 172–189), indicate that the same name is also used in many places for Cephalaria Syriaca L.; the common denominator of the two very different plants is that they are weeds and their seeds spoil the flour if they are ground with it. The grains produced by Lolium are light gray; if infected by a fungus they become dark and poisonous. Lolium belongs to the same family as most grains. It is used as fodder for chickens. Cephalaria is a grass from the family of dipsaceas. Its grains are almost black, about the size of a wheat kernel, and are poisonous to humans but eagerly eaten by pigeons. One has to wonder whether the word could also designate grain blight, whose poison is generated by a fungus just as that of Lolium. Maimonides defines זונין as a kind of inedible wheat; this could indicate blight. Arukh explains by Italian niella, “black kernels.” This translation would fit both Cephalaria and grain blight. The Hareubenis report that in the Arabic of Galilee and Syria, the same word שַׁילַם denotes Lolium,Cephalaria, and blight. are not kilaim one with the other. Barley and fox tail² “oats.”, spelt and oats³, “rye,” following Rashi and Rabbenu Gershom to Babli Pesaḥim35a. Maimonides: “prairie wheat.” Arukh: espelda (modern Italian spelta) “spelt.” The Babli Menaḥot 70b defines שיפון by Aramaic דישרא which can be compared either to Syriac/Arabic دوس “aegilops, barley darnel” (which would parallel זונין for wheat) or to Accadic dišarru “a kind of grain, oats, or rye.”, beans⁴. and Indian peas⁵. (in the opinion of H. L. Fleischer, Phaseolus mungo), Arukh: cicercula, chick-pea. and grass peas⁶ or Lathyrus cicera, Arukh: Italian piso “pea.” and chick peas⁷. and fava beans and green beans⁸ are not kilaim one with the other⁹.

footnotes: ¹ Arabic זִוַאן, זֻוַאן, זַוַאן defined in the dictionaries as “Lolium temulentum L ² Maimonides defines this as “prairie barley,” R. Asher and R. Obadia from Bertinoro as (Spanish and Italian) avena ³ R. Asher defines as French seigle ⁴ In Hebrew and Arabic used only for beans not eaten with their pods, mostly vicia faba ⁵ Maimonides: Arabic מאש Phaseolus maximus L ⁶ Maimonides: Arabic גֻלֻבָּאן Lathyrus sativus ⁷ Maimonides: A kind of peas that are spherical and hard, resembling oat grains. Arukh: Arabic גֻלֻבָּאן Lathyrus sativus ⁸ Eaten for their pods. Maimonides: Arabic לוּבִּיָא “beans.” ⁹ This refers separately to each group of two plants connected by “and”.

HALAKHAH: It is written: (Lev. 19:19) “you should not sow your field kilaim;” I could think, even two kinds of wheat or two kinds of barley. “You should not breed your animals kilaim;” I could think, even black on white cattle, or white on black cattle. “And kilaim cloth, שעטנז, should not be worn by you;” I could think, even two kinds of wool or two kinds of linen. It was made explicit about garments, (Deut. 22:11) “do not wear שעטנז, wool and linen together.” Just as for garments where I forbade you two kinds, neither one is of the genus of the other, so kilaim that I forbade you at any place, neither one is of the genus of the other.

“Wheat and zĕwānîn are not kilaim one with the other.” Hence, with barley they would constitute kilaim¹¹ nor Lolium grow in barley fields since the larger leaves of the barley obstruct the sunlight they need for growth. Hence, the question is theoretical.. “Wheat and zĕwānîn are not kilaim one with the other;” could anybody err about something that is not food and state it as kilaim¹², the prohibition refers only to crops that are raised by the farmer and excludes weeds.? Rebbi Abba bar Zavda said, because there are places where they are collected as food for pigeons¹³, not to Lolium. It might apply to blighted wheat.. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda said, this follows Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there¹⁴: “If somebody lets thorns grow in his vineyard, they become ‘sanctified’, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. But the Sages say, they do not become ‘sanctified’.” Rabbi Abbahu said, the reason of Rebbi Eliezer is that at some places in Arabia one stores them for camels¹⁵ are forbidden, should be of interest here. But since practice does not follow R. Eliezer, a discussion is not necessary.) The statement is quoted in Babli Šabbat134b, in the name of R. Ḥanina.. Does this imply that the Sages think that there are no places in Arabia where one stores them for the camels? Let them check it out! The Sages say, where one stores them they are forbidden, but at places where one does not store them they are permitted. But Rebbi Abba bar Zavda cannot follow Rebbi Eliezer¹⁶! There, people do not transport horns¹⁷ from place to place. But here, people do transport zewānîn from place to place¹⁸ are an object of trade and, hence, a cash crop subject to the rules of kilaim. This was still found true by the Hareubenis in the early 1930’s..

footnotes: ¹¹ The Hareubenis note that neither Cephalaria ¹² Since one may not sow one’s field kilaim ¹³ This applies only to Cephalaria ¹⁴ Mishnah 5:8. That text reads: “But the Sages say, nothing becomes forbidden unless it is allowed to grow.” ¹⁵ There, thorns may represent a cash crop. (One might wonder why Arabia, not a place where kilaim ¹⁶ Since practice does not follow Rebbi Eliezer in his disputes with the Sages, and our Mishnah is anonymous, the Mishnah cannot be explained as being R. Eliezer’s. ¹⁷ R. Simson reads קוֹצִים “thorns;” this is appropriate here. The two manuscripts of the Yerushalmi read קרנים “horns,” which is difficult but not impossible since most points of thorns are horn-shaped. ¹⁸ At places in the Holy Land, zĕwānîn

If so¹⁹ can be a cash crop, they should be kilaim with anything that is not their own kind., should they not be kilaim with wheat? Rebbi Jonah said, they are a kind of wheat but the fruits went astray²⁰ also belongs to the same family (gramineae) as wheat and rye.. As it was stated: (Lev. 19:29) “The Land should not go whoring,” from here that produce may go astray.

footnotes: ¹⁹ If zĕwānîn ²⁰ This certainly fits blight, but Lolium

Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi asked before Rebbi Jeremiah: Is our Mishnah from Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose? As it was stated²¹ 4:6,7, this appears in a different formulation: “Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose says in the name of his father that one may take heave from wine on vinegar but not from vinegar on wine. Even if one gives heave, one gives only in proportion. {That means, one gives enough vinegar that it would equal in value the wine which should have been given.} If somebody gives an amphora of wine as heave and it turns out to be vinegar, when it was known that it was vinegar before he gave the heave, it is not heave. But if it turned into vinegar after it was given, it is heave. In case of doubt it is heave and he should give heave a second time, the words of Rebbi, who says that wine and vinegar are two distinct kinds, but the Sages say, it is one kind.”: “Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose says in the name of his father that one may take heave from wine on vinegar but not from vinegar on wine. If somebody transgressed, his heave is heave. Rebbi says that wine and vinegar are two distinct kinds and one does not give heave nor does one tithe from one on the other.” He²² was looking at him. He said to him, what are you staring at me? Bring a lash for yourself²³; there it is for tithing²⁴, here it is for kilaim²⁵. Rebbi Jonah said, he should not have stared at him since the earlier rabbis wanted to understand this matter and understood that there it refers to tithing but here to kilaim.

footnotes: ²¹ In Tosephta Terumot ²² Rebbi Jeremiah looked at R. Jacob to indicate that he found the question stupid and a waste of time. ²³ That you can be whipped for asking such a stupid question. ²⁴ An obligation on the finished product. ²⁵ An obligation on the fruit growing on the field. It was implied in the first paragraph that wine grapes and grapes used for producing vinegar should not be treated as two separate kinds.

Rebbi Yosa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: All of these form pairs. Has that been said for the entire Chapter, or only for this Halakhah? From what Rav said, that the five vegetables with which one may satisfy one’s obligation at Passover time can all be sown in one vegetable bed²⁶2:5; cf. the author’s The Scholar’s Haggadah, pp. 332–333. The parallel discussion to the one given here is in Babli Pesaḥim 39a, also in the name of Rav. The statement of Rav was understood to mean that the five kinds may be sown together., and one says that the statement of Rav disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan²⁷, it follows that it has been said for the entire Chapter. Rav Abba in the name of Rav: All²⁸ have been stated in pairs. The reasoning of Rav is inverted; there he says that they all constitute one kind, and here, he says so? No, Rav did not say that they all constitute one kind, but rather that they all are kinds of vegetables that may be sown in one vegetable bed²⁹.

footnotes: ²⁶ The five vegetables which may be used for bitter herbs on Passover are enumerated in Mishnah Pesaḥim ²⁷ Since some of the bitter herbs are mentioned in Mishnah 2, dividing them into groups seems to contradict the opinion of Rav. ²⁸ Referring to the Chapter here, identical with the previous statement of R. Joḥanan that only pairs of plants enumerated with a connecting ו may be planted together. ²⁹ In Mishnah 3:1 it will be stated that in planting vegetable beds one may not mix vegetables but one may plant different kinds so that they almost touch at corners, whereas grain and legume fields need much greater distances between different crops. All Rav wanted to state was that they can be sown under the lenient rules for vegetable beds, for intensive cultivation, in contrast to produce that can only be sown in fields, for extensive cultivation. Rav did not mean to say that they all were one kind.

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, they found written in the notebook of Rebbi Hillel ben Rebbi Vales³⁰; Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, they found written on the wall of Rebbi Hillel ben Rebbi Vales: Beans, πίσον³¹, chick peas³², *mlwt’*³³. Arukh reads מיליתא. I. Löw proves that all proposed identifications are impossible (Flora der Juden 2, p. 437.), krpwnh³⁴, climbing beans³⁵ “bean”..

footnotes: ³⁰ A companion of Rebbi Jehudah Nesia, the grandson of Rebbi, reputed to have been very rich. ³¹ Reading of R. Simson: פייסונא, of Rome ms. פרשונה. These are all explanations in the vernacular of the different kinds of beans and peas mentioned in the Mishnah. Here, the Greek for “peas” is the explanation of ספיר. ³² The Aramaic word is identical with the Arabic גלובאן mentioned in Note 6. Readings of R. Simson: גולבינא, of Rome ms.: גיבלונה. ³³ An unexplained word for the Mishnah word טופח. R. Simson reads as our text, Rome ms. מלוותא (which in Syriac would be a plural, “pitchers.”) The attempt by Jastrow to explain the word as describing peas grown by hydroponics is impossible, since acquatic plants are not subject to the laws of kilaim ³⁴ Another unexplained word. R. Simson reads מדשיא, the Rome ms. שדפוה. ³⁵ R. Simson reads פסילתא, Greek φάσηλος, Latin phaselus

So is the Mishnah: Fava beans and string beans³⁶. Rebbi Jonah said, why is it called שעוּעית? Because if makes the heart happy and the intestines going.

footnotes: ³⁶ These are two different kinds and not one long name. In the Rome ms., פול והשעונית.

MISHNAH: Green melon³⁸“cucumber, cucumis sativus L.” This is Maimonides’s definition, in Yemenite mss., for all three occurrences of the word in Mishnah Zeraïm. However, in Mishnah Uqeẓin 2:1 and apparently in the Zera‘im ms. before Alḥarizi, he defines it as Arabic فُقُوس fuqūs, in classical Arabic “green melon” (possibly water melon?). In modern Hebrew, קישות means “zucchini.” and sweet melon³⁹.nat. XIX (23)] defines melopepon as “golden melon, cucumis melo L.” The Yerushalmi Targum to Num. 11:5 translates Hebrew אבטיח as מלפפון (in contrast to modern Hebrew where אבטיח means “water melon.”) Maimonides translates מלפפון as Arabic כ̇יאר خِيَار ḵiyār “cucumber.” This is the meaning of the word in Modern Hebrew, vocalized מְלָֽפְפוֹן. are not kilaim one with the other. Rebbi Jehudah says, they are kilaim. Lettuce and garden lettuce⁴⁰, endives and field endives⁴¹, leeks⁴² and field leeks, coriander and field coriander, mustard and Egyptian mustard⁴³, Egyptian pumpkin and ash-gourd⁴⁴, which in Moroccan means “watermelon”. He defines ash-gourd as a naturally bitter pumpkin which becomes edible only when roasted for some time in hot ashes (רמץ). In the Babli, Nedarim 51a, Samuel defines the fruit as “Caucasian gourd.”, Egyptian beans⁴⁵ “large flat greenish beans,” the main ingredient of falafel. חרוב means “carob, carob tree,” but here it means elongated black beans that imitate the looks and shape of carob. and carob beans are not kilaim one with the other.

footnotes: ³⁸ The word is etymologically equivalent with Arabic قِثّاْ qiṯṯā ³⁹ In the Halakhah, the word is explained as Greek μηλοπέπων “apple melon,” composite of μῆλον “apple,” πέπων “sun ripened.” Pliny [Hist ⁴⁰ The wild form of Romaine lettuce and its cultivated variety. [In Modern Hebrew, following Ashkenazic Medieval usage, the word is used for horseradish.] ⁴¹ Here, the cultivated form is mentioned first and the wild one second; one might conclude that in the days of the Mishnah, wild Romaine lettuce was still collected for sale but endives were mostly produced in the vegetable garden. ⁴² Also כרת̇י, Arabic كرّاث kurrāṯ. ⁴³ The difference between these two plants can no longer be determined. ⁴⁴ Maimonides defines Egyptian gourd as دالع dalā‘ ⁴⁵ Arabic also فول fūl

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yudan bar Menasheh⁴⁶ said: The opinion of the Sages is that one takes a small piece from the pericarp⁴⁷ of a green melon and plants it and it grows to a water melon. One takes a small piece from the pericarp of a water melon and plants it and it grows to a sweet melon. Rebbi Jehudah says, it in itself is kilaim. One takes a small piece from the pericarp of a water melon and a small piece from the pericarp of an apple and puts them into one cavity where they unite and become kilaim. Therefore it is called “apple melon” in the Greek language.

footnotes: ⁴⁶ A third generation Galilean Amora; his surviving statements are all aggadic. ⁴⁷ Some fertilized seeds with the carpic tissue surrounding it.

What does Rebbi Jehudah say about green melon and water melon? Let us hear from the following⁴⁸ 1:1: “Green melon and squash, water melon and melopepon, are not kilaim one with the other, and one may tithe from one on the other; these are the words of R. Meïr. R. Jehudah and R. Simeon say, they are kilaim one with the other, and one may not tithe from one on the other.”: “Green melon, water melon, and sweet melon are not kilaim [if combined] one with the other; Rebbi Jehudah says, they are kilaim.” It has been said that green melon and water melon are not kilaim one with the other, and water melon and sweet melon are not kilaim one with the other; Rebbi Jehudah says they are kilaim. Green melon and water melon are questionable⁴⁹ only compares pairs. Hence, it is questionable whether the baraita teaches anything new. We know from the Mishnah about the comparison of green melon and sweet melon, also from the Tosephta about water melon and sweet melon (cf. Notes 39, 48). Since Rebbi Jehudah is only quoted as reacting to the statements of the first teacher, nothing can be inferred about his opinion if the reference to sweet melon is omitted. In any case, the argument teaches that the absence of kilaim is not a transitive notion: If A is not kilaim with B, and B not with C, it does not follow that A is not kilaim with C..

footnotes: ⁴⁸ Tosephta Kilaim ⁴⁹ Since in the entire chapter we are dealing with comparisons of pairs, it is assumed that the teacher of the baraita

“Lettuce and garden lettuce.” Rebbi Ḥananiah said, roof lettuce. Simeon, the son of Rebbi Avi, said, Antiochian (lettuce⁵², reads אינטובין, ἔντυβον “endives.”.) Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, sweet yase⁵³ is unconvincing. The identifications in Kilaim and Pesaḥim 5:2 refer to different plants.. Endives may be eaten raw⁵⁴, field endives are ‘ulthin⁵⁵. Leeks. Fields leeks are κεφαλωτόν⁵⁶), found also in Syriac and Arabic..

footnotes: ⁵² Musaphia, in his additions to Arukh ⁵³ An unidentified plant. Kohut’s identification as jacea ⁵⁴ Τρώξιμα, τά “what is eaten raw, vegetable”, from τρώγω “to nibble, eat raw”; in Jewish sources only used for endives. ⁵⁵ Arabic غَلثَة עֹלתֹה “bitter vegetable”. ⁵⁶ Meaning “with big head” (allium capitatum

“Egyptian gourd.⁵⁹” Our Mishnah does not follow Rebbi Neḥemiah. In the name of Rebbi Neḥemiah⁶⁰ with ash-gourd.” In that Tosephta, the identification of Aramean with Egyptian gourds is missing. The Yerushalmi text is quoted in Babli Nedarim 51a. See also below, Mishnah 5.: Aramean gourd is Egyptian gourd; it is kilaim with Greek gourd, kilaim with ash-gourd.

footnotes: ⁵⁹ This and the following items are quoted from the Mishnah. ⁶⁰ In Tosephta 1:5: “Rebbi Neḥemiah said, Aramean and Egyptian gourds are kilaim

“Ash gourd.” Rebbi Ḥinenah said, it is a kind of bitter gourd and they sweeten it in hot ashes.

“And carob beans.” Rebbi Jonah said, they are a kind of Egyptian - Persian beans and their pods look like carob⁶¹.

footnotes: ⁶¹ From all these explanations one may infer that many of the kinds mentioned in the Mishnah either were no longer known in the Fourth Century or were known under different names.

MISHNAH: Turnips and naphew⁶². In most Mishnah manuscripts, the word is נפוץ with emphatic ṣ. [Maimonides defines as radish (raphanus) of the Holy Land.], cabbage and cauliflower⁶³, Arabic قَرْنَبِيط qarnabīṭ. [Jellinek wants toderive the Hebrew word from Arabic תַּרִבַּה, name of a plant, from תרב “to be dusty”. This might be combined with תַּאר “fat”, as a fat plant whose surface looks as if dusty.], beets⁶⁴, modern Hebrew סֶלֶק (from Babylonian Aramaic, Babli Berakhot 35b.) and orach⁶⁵., are not kilaim one with the other. Rebbi Aqiba added that garlic and dwarf garlic⁶⁶, onion and dwarf onion, lupine and wild lupine⁶⁷ L. The Gaonic commentary to the Mishnah published by S. Asaph (תשובות הגאונים, מקיצי נרדמים ירושלים ת̇ש̇ב̇) explains the word as Arabic قُرُّاص qurrāṣ “stinging nettle, urtica.” are not kilaim one with the other.

footnotes: ⁶² Latin napus ⁶³ Definition of Arukh ⁶⁴ Defined by Maimonides as Arabic سِلق silq ⁶⁵ Definition of Maimonides, Arabic قَطَف qaṭaf ⁶⁶ According to Maimonides, this is a medicinal variety of garlic whose root is not separated into cloves as is kitchen garlic. ⁶⁷ R. Isaac Simponti refers to Greek δενδροφάσηλος, a kind not recorded in Byzantine Greek botanical lists. In the opinion of J. Löw, the word is a Semitic diminutive and designates probably Lupinus luteus

HALAKHAH: “Turnips and naphew, cabbage and cauliflower,” thin cabbage. “Beets and orach,” orach⁶⁹ of liquids. In ms. Rome: חמועיין, an otherwise undocumented form.. “Rebbi Aqibah added garlic and dwarf garlic,” little garlic. “Onion and dwarf onion,” little “radish.” “Lupine and wild lupine,” pdmw‘h⁷⁰, are not kilaim one with the other⁷¹

footnotes: ⁶⁹ This is the same word as in the Mishnah, except for a dialectal change l-m ⁷⁰ This word is unexplained. R. Saul Lieberman is correct in rejecting all explanations based on emendations since the text is corroborated by the Rome ms. ⁷¹ This seems to be the statement of the Talmud, not of the Mishnah, deciding practice following R. Aqiba, against the opinion of Maimonides.

MISHNAH: Among trees, pears and golden apples⁷³, “a kind of quince also known as κυδώνιον μῆλον.” Maimonides defines קרוסטמלין as “pears” and אגסין by an Arabic word بُرقوق having many meanings depending on local dialects (including apricots and prunes.) R. Y. Qafeḥ notes that in Yemen, the standard Arabic word for pear means apricot and that for apricot pear., quince and sorbs⁷⁴ “hawthorn”. Quince, sorb tree, and hawthorn all belong to the same botanical family. are not kilaim one with the other. Apple and ḥizrar⁷⁵ “fork apples” [possibly apple trees with forked support (espaliers)? (E. G.)], peaches⁷⁶, “Persian plum.” and almonds, jujubes⁷⁷. The Greek form exists also as ζίζυφος; in I. Löw’s opinion, the word is originally Semitic. (In modern Hebrew, the word means “plum.”) and lotus fruit, even though they resemble one another, they are kilaim one with the other.

footnotes: ⁷³ Χρυσόμηλον, chrysomelum ⁷⁴ Definition of Alḥarizi on basis of Maimonides’s Arabic זערור. R. Y. Qafeḥ translates by crataegus ⁷⁵ Maimonides gives the Arabic equivalent אל עזרן; ע̇זר means in classical literary Arabic anything (plant, flock, earth) yielding abundantly. R. Isaac ben Malkiẓedeq Simponti translates by Italian mele forcaroli ⁷⁶ Prunus persicus ⁷⁷ Zizyphus vulgaris L

HALAKHAH: “Quince.” Rebbi Jonah said, quince⁷⁸.. Why are they called “prepared”, because there is no tree only producing for the pot except that kind⁷⁹.

footnotes: ⁷⁸ In Syriac אספרגלל, in Arabic سَفَرجَل safar jal ⁷⁹ No other edible fruit requires cooking under all circumstances.

Salman the Levite, the brother of Zavdi the Levite, in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: All statements are pair by pair⁸⁰. Rav said, all are one kind⁸¹. This statement can draw support from the fact that the names of all trees mentioned are connected by ו.. A baraitha disagrees with Rav, for we have stated: also the baka-bush⁸². Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun objected, did we not also state oregano⁸³?

footnotes: ⁸⁰ This applies only to the positive first part of the Mishnah. The opinion of R. Joshua ben Levi parallels that of R. Johanan in Halakhah 1. ⁸¹ All four trees mentioned as not being kilaim ⁸² A bush of the balsam family, not really a tree. Hence, such a plant cannot be in one family with pears etc., and not all are one kind. ⁸³ Oregano is a small bush, much less of a tree than the baka-bush. Since no answer is given, Rav’s position is rejected.

“⁸⁴ They used to graft quince onto pears in the markets of Sepphoris. A student saw them and said to them, you are forbidden [to do so.] They went and cut them down. Then they went and asked at Jabneh. They said to them, the one who hit you was from the students of the House of Shammai⁸⁵.” It says only, quince on a pear tree. Hence, not a pear tree on a ḥizrar⁸⁶.

footnotes: ⁸⁴ Tosephta 1:4, with slight changes in spelling and better attention to number; on the other hand, the spelling of endings here fits the period of Jabneh better than the Tosephta. The Court sat at Jabneh only from 70–138 C. E. ⁸⁵ The practice to be followed is that of the House of Hillel, not that of the House of Shammai. ⁸⁶ Which is a kind of wild apple, not of the family of pears.

“⁸⁷ איכה ישבה חבצלת השרון, the place is called “the hot springs of Ariaḥ.” In the region of Ariaḥ they grafted apple on ḥizrar. A student came and told them, this is forbidden to you. They went, cut them down, and came to ask at Jabneh. They said to them, that student said correctly⁸⁸ are declared kilaim in the Mishnah..” He⁸⁹ on an apple tree. Does it follow that grafting ḥizrar on a pear tree would be permitted? In that case, this Tosephta would contradict the conclusions we had drawn from the preceding Tosephta. said only, apple on ḥizrar. Hence, not about ḥizrar on pear? What the occasions were, they were⁹⁰.

footnotes: ⁸⁷ Tosephta 1:3. Ariaḥ was a town of priests of the family Ma‘aziyah, in the neighborhood of Tiberias. In the Kalirian qinnah ⁸⁸ Since apple and ḥizrar ⁸⁹ That student mentioned only the prohibition of grafting ḥizrar ⁹⁰ Neither Tosephta can be used for logical inferences; they report only what happened. They are not theoretical statements.

It was stated: If a Gentile grafted walnut on a peach stump, a Jew, even though he is not permitted to do this, may take a shoot and go and plant it at another location. What results from them? Persian qdryh⁹³, s. v. שזף) reads קריא and explains καρύα περσική “Persian nut.” This probably is an arbitrary emendation.. If he crosses beet and purslain⁹⁴. For the identification of the plant from dialectal Arabic, see H. L. Fleischer in Levy’s dictionary, II, p. 445. The explanations of Arukh, Italian asparago “asparagus” or fenicoli“fennel”, do not fit., a Jew, even though he is not permitted to do this⁹⁵ 1:11. There, the spelling of the second plant is ירבוז, in accordance with the Arabic., may take a seed and go and plant it at another location. What results from them? Groundsel⁹⁶. In Syrian Arabic, the plant is identified with قطف, “orach.”. Zargun⁹⁷ “gold colored.” In Arabic, this is a common name for shoots of the vine. The identification does not fit here at all. It is much better to derive the word from Persian زرچوبه zarčūbeh “turmeric.” (The problem is the pronunciation of ג, גּ, which may represent g, غgh as in Syrian Judeo-Arabic, or g, ج j as in Yemenite Judeo-Arabic.) and turnips, what results from them? Parsley⁹⁸. This seems to be the better reading by far.. Almonds and terebinths, what results from them? Pistachios. Olive trees and pomegranate trees, what results from them? Zizyphus.

footnotes: ⁹³ R. Simson reads קירדו. Musaphia (Arukh ⁹⁴ Albersia Blitum ⁹⁵ As spelled out in Tosephta Kilaim ⁹⁶ Reading with Löw כרוסלכינין, χρυσολάχανον, atriplex agrestis ⁹⁷ From Persian زرغونzargūn ⁹⁸ Πετροσέλινον. The Venice text has dittographyפטר פיטרה סולינון . R. Simson: אסטפלינון, σταφυλῖνος, “carrot,” daucus carota

MISHNAH: Radish and naphew, mustard and hoar-hound⁹⁹), defined by Arukh as Italian marrobio, “white hoar-hound.”; Greek gourd with the Egyptian and ash ones, even though they look similar, are kilaim one with the other.

footnotes: ⁹⁹ Greek λαψάνη (also λαμψάνη, “charlock”, brassica arvensis

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonathan said, there are some where they considered the fruit¹⁰⁰. “Fruit”, as with the benedictions over vegetables, does not mean the fruit in the botanical sense but the edible part. In the examples here, “fruit” is always the root., and there are some where they considered the leaves. Turnips and radish¹⁰¹, and the Chinese radish sold in New York., they went in their regard after the fruit. Turnips and naphew, they considered after the leaves. They objected: But radish and naphew have similar fruits and similar leaves, and you say, they are kilaim? Rebbi Jonah said, in that case, they considered the taste of the produce.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁰ “Considering” means establishing a criterion for close relationship which excludes kilaim ¹⁰¹ Any radish mentioned here has a large white root, quite similar to turnips, not small and red. It is exemplified by the German Bierrettich

MISHNAH: Wolf and dog, rural dog¹⁰² these are small dogs barking at night in the deserted places surrounding villages; according to Maimonides and a Gaonic source they are hunting dogs. The Halakhah is only intelligible through the definition of Arukh. and fox, goat and deer, mountain goats and sheep, horse and mule, mule and donkey, donkey and wild donkey, even though they look similar, they are kilaim one with the other.

footnotes: ¹⁰² According to Arukh

HALAKHAH: Hence, dog and rural dog are not kilaim¹⁰³. This is not following Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr says that they are kilaim. Even though Rebbi Meïr says that the dog is a domesticated animal, he agrees that the rural dog is a wild animal¹⁰⁴ animals is forbidden (Lev. 3:17) but the fat of kasher wild animals is permitted; the blood of kasher wild animals has to be spilled, the blood of kasher domesticated animals may be used for industrial purposes.. Hence, according to Rebbi Meïr, dog and rural dog are kilaim.

footnotes: ¹⁰³ Since they are not mentioned as a pair that cannot be mated. An anonymous Mishnah is supposed to follow R. Meïr’s opinion unless the opposite is proven. ¹⁰⁴ Domesticated and wild animals, even though they might belong to the same family, cannot be treated as kindred since the fat of domesticated kasher

Birds are not mentioned in the Mishnah. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is inferred from [the statement of] Bar Dalaiah¹⁰⁶ 55a, R. Simeon ben Laqish is quoted to the effect that in the Mishnah, Rebbi taught that chicken, pheasant, and peacock are kilaim one with the other. The language of the Babli is close to that of the Tosephta. R. Simeon ben Laqish’s position in the Babli is that of R. Yose (the Amora, colleague of R. Jonah) later in the present paragraph.: “Chicken with pheasant, chicken with peacock, even though they look similar, are kilaim one with the other.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said that Rebbi stated for us a complete Mishnah: “The same applies to wild animals and birds¹⁰⁷ 5:7. The Mishnah notes that the Biblical precept regarding the responsibility of somebody who digs a hole in the public domain and “an ox or a donkey” falls into it (Ex. 21:33) extends to all domesticated animals, to damages assessed on a thief, to the requirement of returning stray animals to their owners, to unload animals in distress, to the prohibition of muzzling an animal used for threshing, to kilaim, and to Sabbath rest. Then the Mishnah adds, “The same applies to wild animals and birds.” Hence, the applicability of all rules of kilaim to birds is spelled out there..” Rebbi Jonah said, we need that of Rebbi Joḥanan, we state here “wild animal” and explain it there¹⁰⁸.. We state here “domesticated animal” and explain it there. Birds, we stated there and explain it here¹⁰⁹ one with the other if one is domesticated (chicken) and the other is wild (pheasant) or semi-wild (peacock).. Rebbi Jose said, is that correct? It comes to tell you that birds are forbidden in kilaim¹¹⁰!

footnotes: ¹⁰⁶ His statement parallels a Tosephta (1:7). In the parallel in Babli Baba Qama ¹⁰⁷ Mishnah Baba Qama ¹⁰⁸ We give here cases involving domesticated and wild animals but the underlying principle is given there, in Baba Qama ¹⁰⁹ We really do not explain anything here but the statements of the Tosephta and Bar Dalaiah show that the detailed rules imply that birds from the same family are kilaim ¹¹⁰ Since the Mishnah states that “the same applies,” it is implied that all rules apply uniformly. Hence, the examples of birds are unnecessary as proclaimed rules.

Rebbi Jeremiah said, Cahana asked R. Simeon ben Laqish¹¹¹.rabba 7(6); it is mentioned in Babli Baba Qama 55a.: What is the rule for someone who mates sea animals¹¹²? He said to him, it is written about them (Gen. 1:21): “By their kinds¹¹³.” Rebbi Aḥa did not say so, but Rebbi Aḥa used to say in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, wherever “by their kinds” is written, kilaim applies to it. Rebbi Cahana objected, it is written about the animals of the sea¹¹⁴.rabba, one reads “fish.” The verse speaks of all sea creatures, including fish, sea reptiles, and sea mammals. It is difficult to see how copulation could apply to fish. “by their kinds;” kilaim should apply to them! Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, here did Cahana spread his net over Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish and caught him¹¹⁵. Rebbi Jonah said, I can explain it, because of one who leads¹¹⁶ 8:2 states that any two kinds of animals that are kilaim with one another may not be driven or led when harnessed together and may not be used for plowing together.. He brings a string and binds it to the gills of a white fish¹¹⁷ and a green fish; they rub one another and spawn¹¹⁸55a, does not consider the crossing of fish species, only that of marine mammals.).

footnotes: ¹¹¹ The abbreviation ריש לקיש is Babylonian. The entire paragraph has a parallel in Gen ¹¹² In this version, one speaks about aquatic mammals who do copulate. ¹¹³ As explained in the next version, “by their kinds” is written to forbid cross-mating. ¹¹⁴ In Gen ¹¹⁵ Since R. Simeon had no answer to his objection. ¹¹⁶ Mishnah Kilaim ¹¹⁷ Greek λεῦκος, name of a fish; cf. also λευκός “white”. ¹¹⁸ Hence, while copulation is a notion not applicable to fish, any actions to induce cross-breeding are still forbidden. (The Babli, Baba Qama

MISHNAH: One does not bring¹¹⁹ a tree on a tree, a vegetable on a vegetable, and neither a tree on a vegetable nor a vegetable on a tree. Rebbi Jehudah permits vegetable on tree¹²⁰.

footnotes: ¹¹⁹ This general expression covers an array of agricultural techniques, not just grafting. The details are explained in the following Halakhot. ¹²⁰ Because the tree stump is only a kind of soil for the vegetable.

HALAKHAH: The opinion of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted. There¹²¹, he says that a man takes a small piece from the pericarp of a water melonand a small piece from the pericarp of an apple, places them into one cavity where they unite and become kilaim, and here he says so? There, because he places them so that they touch one another, unite and become kilaim, but here it is vegetable on tree.

footnotes: ¹²¹ Halakhah 2.

It was stated: From where that one may not graft a tree bearing no edible fruit onto a fruit-bearing tree, or a fruit-bearing tree onto another fruit-bearing tree of a kind that is not his own kind, from where? The verse says (Lev. 19:19): “You must keep My basic Laws¹²², your field you shall not sow kilaim, and kilaim cloth, šʻṭnz, shall not come onto you.” It is concluded (Sifra Qedošim 4:13–18) that the rules of all three cases are parallel to one another..” Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Eleazar¹²³, in the name of Cahana: This is Rebbi Eleazar’s, “because of the basic Laws I gave.”¹²⁴ 8:8 and Babli Sanhedrin 56b that mating two different kinds or grafting two different kinds are activities forbidden in the Law of Nature given to Adam and Noah. He holds that the reference to חוֹק, “basic law,” here is to the Law of Creation, where all living things were created “in their kinds.” In the Tosephta and the Babli, he is alone in his opinion. If this is so, it was forbidden to Adam, the first man¹²⁵ were given at Sinai only to the Jewish people. It is not sinful for a Gentile to cross-breed species.! Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi La, it is the opinion of everybody, because of the basic Laws that I gave to My world¹²⁶(4:14): “Not only your animals with your animals, your animals with the animals of a Gentile, the animals of a Gentile with your animals, Gentile animals with Gentile animals; the verse reads: You must keep my basic Laws.” If Gentiles were exempt, their animals could not be included in the prohibition. R. Eleazar will agree that sowing a field with two different kinds, and wearing clothing made from wool and linen together are prohibitions addressed only to Jews. Only kilaim connected to the story of Creation are obligations of Gentiles.. If it is so, is should be forbidden to graft a black fig tree on a white¹²⁷ fig tree. Rebbi Avin said, did you not infer the rules from kilaim of textiles? Just as for kilaim of textiles two kinds, not one from this kind and the other from the other kind¹²⁸, also any other kilaim that I forbade you, not one from this kind and the other from the other kind.

footnotes: ¹²² The verse reads: “You must keep My basic Laws, your animals you shall not breed kilaim ¹²³ The Amora. R. Eleazar mentioned next is R. Eleazar ben Shamua, the Tanna. ¹²⁴ The Tanna R. Eleazar states in Tosephta Avodah Zarah ¹²⁵ This is the opinion of R. Eleazar; why is he alone in that opinion? The Sages hold that the laws of kilaim ¹²⁶ This is the position of the anonymous Tanna in Sifra Qedōšīm ¹²⁷ Not really white, but rather light green. ¹²⁸ But yarns of different color, or from different strains of flax, may be made into one garment. Similarly, different varieties of the same species may be mated or grafted.

It was stated in the name of Rebbi Eleazar¹²⁹ 8:8.: “The Gentile may sow and wear kilaim, but he may not mate his animals as kilaim or graft his tree kilaim.” Why? Because about these, it is written “by their kinds.” But is it not also written for grasses “by their kinds?¹³⁰” It is not written for the commandment, only at the realization. If this is so, why was Earth cursed¹³¹.rabba 5(9).? Rebbi Judan bar Shalom said, because it transgressed the orders of the Holy One, praise to Him! (Gen. 1:11) “The earth should produce lawns, grasses producing seed,” but it produced only (Gen. 1:12) “lawns, grasses producing seed by their kinds.¹³².rabba, the difference is about trees, for which Earth was commanded to produce “fruit trees” but bore “trees producing fruit.” In the opinion of R. Yudan bar Shalom, this is disobedience since the entire tree should have been edible, not only the fruit. In the opinion of R. Phineas, Earth produced more than it was commanded, since all trees, even those which today do not grow edible fruit, did produce edible fruit before Adam’s sin. In all cases, only the first words of the verse are quoted, as is customary in both Talmudim. The inference is from the other parts of the verses.” Rebbi Phineas said, it enjoyed the commandment and added shade trees. In the opinion of Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom, Earth was justly cursed. In the opinion of Rebbi Phineas, why was Earth cursed? Like a man who said: The breastnipples should be cursed that this one¹³³ suckled from. This follows Rebbi Nathan: Three stood in judgment and four went out cursed, (Gen. 3:17) “Earth is cursed because of you.”

footnotes: ¹²⁹ Tosephta Avodah Zarah ¹³⁰ Why may one graft grasses; they are never mentioned in the Mishnah. ¹³¹ From here on, an expanded version is in Gen ¹³² As explained in Gen ¹³³ A criminal; in that case, Adam.

So far it only is written, “do not mate your animals kilaim.” Birds from where¹³⁴?? Some Tannaim state from (Lev. 19:19): “You must keep My basic Laws¹³⁵,” some state from: “your animals¹³⁶, etc., “animal” includes wildlife and birds. you shall not mate kilaim.” If somebody grafted a tree and mated birds¹³⁷, following him who says “you must keep My basic Laws,” he is guilty of two offenses¹³⁸, your field you shall not sow kilaim, and kilaim cloth, ša’aṭnez, shall not come onto you,” contains three separate prohibitions (mating, sowing, cloth) and one general one. The introductory clause is a general statement which expresses a general prohibition, but since it expresses a general principle (לאו שבכלות) it does not define a prosecutable criminal offense. The count of offenses in our text does not refer to morality or to the view of Heaven unknown to us, but to human jurisdiction. If birds are included because of the legal importance of the story of Creation, the perpetrator committed two crimes simultaneously, transgressing the first two of the prohibitions, and has to be punished accordingly. If birds are included only because of an extensive interpretation of בהמה, the prohibition is not explicitly Biblical and not punishable in court. Hence, for the second position, while two sins were committed, only one of them is subject to sanction by the court., according to him who says, “your animals you shall not mate kilaim,” he is guilty only of one offense. When he mated animals and birds, following him who says “you must keep My basic Laws,” he is guilty only of one offense¹³⁹; according to him who says, “your animals you shall not mate kilaim,” he is guilty of two offenses¹⁴⁰.

footnotes: ¹³⁴ How do we know that they fall under the prohibition of kilaim ¹³⁵ As explained above, birds were also created למיניהם and hence may not be artificially crossed with other kinds. ¹³⁶ It was established earlier (Note 107) that for the Sabbath, kilaim ¹³⁷ Simultaneously. Sins committed at different times are certainly punishable separately. It is always understood that breeding of birds and grafting of trees, etc., refer to forbidden acts and not to legitimate breeding or grafting. ¹³⁸ In this paragraph, “him” refers to one of the Tannaïm just quoted.All commentators emend the text and switch “one offense” and “two offenses” between the two cases in order to make sense of the statement. However, since the Rome ms. confirms the text, such an emendation is unacceptable.The verse, “you must keep My basic Laws; your animals you shall not mate kilaim ¹³⁹ Since he simultaneously transgressed the same prohibition in two instances. ¹⁴⁰ An original one, mating domestic animals in a forbidden way, and a secondary one for birds. Since he transgressed the Biblical commandment, the secondary transgression is also punishable.

It was stated¹⁴¹ 1:10.: “One does not graft olives on the stem¹⁴² 62b. Explanations of the Mayence commentary, “a row of date palms,”and of R. Saul Lieberman, “branch of a date palm.” Literally: “One does not make an olive tree ride on the vehicle of a date palm.” of a date palm because that would be tree on tree.” Rebbi Yudan asked, does that not disagree with Rebbi Levi¹⁴³ 128(4), in the name of R. Joshua ben Levi. Since R. Levi was a professional preacher, the attribution to him is more convincing. The objection here is not to the sermon but to its underlying hypothesis; one cannot object to sermons.? “(Ps. 128:3) ‘Your wife be like a fruitful vine on the sides of your house, your sons like saplings of olive trees around your table.’ Just as olive trees are not subject to grafting¹⁴⁴, thus in your sons shall not be found any flaws¹⁴⁵.” But here it follows that there are flaws in them¹⁴⁶. There is a difference here, because in the end it¹⁴⁷ will sweeten its fruit. Similar to that, Rebbi Simeon, the son of Rebbi¹⁴⁸, the final halakhic authority., used to water his peach tree with cooked wine¹⁴⁹ in order to sweeten its fruit.

footnotes: ¹⁴¹ Tosephta Kilaim ¹⁴² Explanation of Rashbam to Babli Baba Batra ¹⁴³ The sermon is brought in Midrash Tehillim ¹⁴⁴ Meaning that one does not graft olive trees since nothing could be gained by it. ¹⁴⁵ Neither should your sons be of uncertain paternity, or from an unlawful wife, nor should they have such problems in their families. ¹⁴⁶ If olive trees can be grafted onto something else, your sons could be grafted on you. ¹⁴⁷ The sap from the date palm stump. ¹⁴⁸ The second son of Rebbi, colleague of R. Ḥiyya. In his will, Rebbi appointed his older son, Gamliel, as political head, and his younger son as ḥakham ¹⁴⁹ Pasteurized grape juice without alcohol.

MISHNAH: One does not plant vegetables in the stump¹⁵⁰ of a Sycamore tree, one does not graft rue on white cassia, because that would be vegetable on tree. One does not plant a fig tree shoot into rue¹⁵¹ 2:1, Note 26. so that the latter should cool it¹⁵²; one does not put a shoot of a vine into a watermelon so that it should supply the shoot with its fluid, because that would be tree on vegetable. One does not put a pumpkin seed into a mallow¹⁵³ and R. Isaac Simponti. The Italian malva given by these authors means either mallow or marshmallow. I. Löw identifies the plant as bugloss (Anchusa officinalis L.). so that it should protect it, because that would be vegetable on vegetable¹⁵⁴.

footnotes: ¹⁵⁰ “Anvil.” Sycamores were mainly planted for their wood and cut down regularly. Their stumps do regenerate. ¹⁵¹ For the determination of חצוב, cf. Peah ¹⁵² Interpretation of Maimonides and R. Isaac Simponti. R. Simson suggests either this translation or “that it serve as a wall around it.” ¹⁵³ Identification of Arukh ¹⁵⁴ One has to assume that all combinations forbidden here were taken from contemporary agricultural practice.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Zachariah, son-in-law of Rebbi Levy, asked: Apart from that, is it not forbidden because of seeds under a vine¹⁵⁵. 22:9. These rules are spelled out in later Chapters of the Tractate. The questioner is of the opinion that planting a shoot of vine in a water melon would be forbidden even if in general trees on vegetables were permitted.? Rebbi Yose said, explain it if he sets its root¹⁵⁶ down more than three hand-breadths¹⁵⁷, distant more than six hand-breadths [from the vine], following what was stated¹⁵⁸ 4:11.: “roots of madder¹⁵⁹., an industrial plant whose roots were used to produce dye. Hence, the roots of the plant are more important for כלאים than the parts above ground. This is the reading of R. Saul Lieberman; it is offered for ease of translation. However, the few manuscript sources at our disposal all read פֵּיאָה, and one must explain the text with this reading. (As Lieberman correctly notes, the attempt by R. Moses Margalit is incomprehensible.) In Tractates Kilaim and Eruvin, the word פֵּיאָה does not have the meaning “corner” as in Tractate Peah, but means a wire or string strung as a symbolic fence around a field to separate it from the next one, or around a town to make it a “walled” town for the rules of Sabbath. Now, it is stated in Mishnah and Tosephta of Chapter 4 that a solid wall permits one to plant vegetables on one side and vines on the other. This clearly is inadmissible for a peah-fence; one may not plant vines within four cubits of such a symbolic fence. Then the Tosephta states that even in this case the roots that enter from the outside do not cause kilaim if they are at a depth of at least half a cubit. that enter within four cubits of a vineyard are permitted below three hand-breadths.”

footnotes: ¹⁵⁵ As indicated in the Introduction, vineyards have particularly strict rules, based on Deut ¹⁵⁶ Meaning the watermelon, that the root of the new vine will grow down there, not that the shoot is set into a watermelon. ¹⁵⁷ A hand-breadth is one sixth of a cubit. ¹⁵⁸ Tosephta Kilaim ¹⁵⁹ Following the reading of R. Solomon Adani in מלאכת שלמה from his manuscripts: פוּאָה Rubia tinctorum L

MISHNAH: If someone hides turnips and radishes under a vine¹⁶⁰ 2:11, 3:6). The Babli (Eruvin77b, Sabbath 50b, 113a) supports the interpretation of R. Simson since it forbids the taking on the Sabbath only if the turnips cannot be pulled by hand. The scenario is difficult to understand since the leaves of harvested plants will soon wilt or rot. and some of the leaves were showing he does not have to worry either because of kilaim,¹⁶¹. Similarly, if the turnips were put into the ground before the start of the Sabbatical year, they do not become Sabbatical produce while in the ground. If they were tithed, they need not be tithed again when taken out. or because of the Sabbatical year, or because of tithes, and they may be removed on the Sabbath¹⁶². If someone sows wheat and barley together, that is kilaim¹⁶³ is 2. Rebbi Jehudah requires uniform rules for all kinds of kilaim and, since Deut. 22:9 states that one may not sow kilaim in one’s vineyard, the minimum is the vine plus kilaim, i. e., three components. {The Babli does not accept the Mishnah as practice but requires at least one seed each from three different species.}. Rebbi Jehudah says, it is not kilaim unless there are two wheat kernels and a barley kernel, or a wheat kernel and two barley kernels, or one each of wheat, barley, and spelt.

footnotes: ¹⁶⁰ These turnips and radishes have been harvested and tithed; now they are put into a hole dug in the earth and covered with earth in order to be preserved over the summer. Since the plants were taken out of the gound, they have lost the capillary roots that fed them in the ground, and if put again into a hole, they will not grow again. In the opinion of R. Simson and R. Abraham ben David of Posquières, it is necessary that some leaves are showing only if one desires to take them out on the Sabbath, since on that day one may neither dig nor harvest. For the other rules, turnips or radishes may be completely covered. In the interpretation of Maimonides and R. Joseph Caro, the leniencies of the Mishnah apply only if some leaves are uncovered (Maimonides, Hilkhot Kilaim ¹⁶¹ Since the produce will not grow, there is no planting and no hint of kilaim ¹⁶² In this case, the radishes have to be pulled out by their leaves. Since radishes are eaten raw, they are permitted food on the Sabbath and may be taken. Earth by itself may not be moved, but if earth falls by the side when the food is moved, its motion is unintentional and not forbidden. ¹⁶³ Obviously, the minimum number of different kinds for kilaim

HALAKHAH: Ḥizqiah said, they stated only turnips and radishes, nothing else. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no difference whether turnips, radishes, or any other plants. What are we talking about¹⁶⁴? If because of the rules of vegetables and trees, why do I need vine and radishes, even any other plants¹⁶⁵? If because he does not want them to take root, why turnips and radishes, even any other species also? From what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, “for example bunches of turnips and bunches of radishes,” it follows that the reason is only because he does not want them to take root¹⁶⁶ permissible for all other fruit trees..

footnotes: ¹⁶⁴ According to R. Joḥanan, why does the Mishnah give only one example and not establish a principle, as in Mishnah 7? ¹⁶⁵ If the reason is to say that in such a situation the prohibition to sow vegetables too close to a tree does not apply, then the particular example is irrelevant. The same question is asked for the alternative reason in the next sentence. ¹⁶⁶ If we accept R. Ḥiyya as authoritative, then all our questions are resolved. First, since he says “for example,” it is clear that he is of R. Joḥanan’s opinion and opposes his own son, Ḥizqiah. Second, the Mishnah mentions turnips and radishes, because they are bound in bunches after the harvest. Hence, not all produce may be so stored but only produce one can store in such a way that the formation of new roots is prevented (e. g., storing cabbage after the roots have been cut away.) This means, in the end we accept neither Ḥizqiah nor R. Joḥanan, but we allow only produce which certainly will not grow new roots, similar to turnips and radishes. (For the requirement that the leaves be uncovered, see Note 160.) Vines are mentioned because they follow the most restrictive rules; what is permissible for vines is a fortiori

It was stated¹⁶⁷ 77a, Sabbath 123a. The opinion of R. Eleazar ben Taddeus is not found in Eruvin.: “If unripe figs that one hid in ṭevel¹⁶⁸, produce from which no heave was taken, may not be consumed on the Sabbath, it may not be moved on the Sabbath. (Cf. Peah, Chapter 1, Note 303. The Babli reads תבן, “straw”; cf. יפה ענים on Šabbat 123a.) The figs are covered by grain to hasten the ripening process. or a flat pita that one hid in glowing charcoal¹⁶⁹ were partially uncovered they may be taken on the Sabbath, otherwise they may not be taken on the Sabbath¹⁷⁰ or coals fall into the void by gravity, not by intentional moving.. Rebbi Eleazar ben Taddeus¹⁷¹ is known. said, in either case he pushes in a spear or a knife and lifts them out¹⁷². 35:33) is forbidden..” The statement of Rebbi Eleazar ben Taddeus turns out following Rebbi Simeon, as we have stated¹⁷³ 22a (and 5 other places); a shorter version is in Tosephta Yom Ṭov 2:18.: “One should not drag¹⁷⁴ a chair, or a bed, or an easy chair because one makes a groove, but Rebbi Simeon permits it.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Huna, Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Illaï: The Sages admit to Rebbi Simeon that a chair whose legs are stuck in mud one is permitted to move¹⁷⁵. And just as you say that one is permitted to move it, so one is permitted to bring it back. Rebbi Yose said, we also have stated¹⁷⁶ 17:1: “All vessels may be taken on the Sabbath.”): “They may be taken on the Sabbath.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, that is from Rebbi Simeon. But we have stated¹⁷⁷ 9:1 that “all aftergrowth of the Sabbatical year is permitted except for that of cabbage,” because the aftergrowth is not usually harvested. This means that aftergrowth may be traded and unlike food harvested in the Sabbatical year, it does not have to be disposed of once there is no more food for the wild animals on the fields. Since any growth of the hidden turnips and radishes can be compared to aftergrowth, there is no way one could possibly worry about the growth in the Sabbatical year, according to R. Simeon. If one cannot worry, then it would be superfluous for R. Simeon to mention that one does not have to worry and he cannot be the author of the Mishnah. Babli Pesaḥim 51b and a few Mishnah sources have R. Simeon stating that “all aftergrowth of the Sabbatical year is forbidden except for that of cabbage.” This reading contradicts the position of the Yerushalrni and will be discussed in Mishnah Ševiït 9:1.: “The Sabbatical year!” Can you say that “the Sabbatical year” follows Rebbi Simeon? Explain “the Sabbatical year!” For Rebbi Simeon permits the aftergrowth of the Sabbatical year, and here he says so? Even though Rebbi Simeon permits aftergrowth of the Sabbatical year, he still holds it subject to the holiness of the Sabbatical year¹⁷⁸. 25.6) but may not be used for industrial purposes, nor may it be left to decay. Holdover turnips and radishes from the previous year may be used for industrial purposes in the Sabbatical year.. Here also, he worries neither about the Sabbatical year nor about the holiness of the Sabbatical year!

footnotes: ¹⁶⁷ Also quoted in Babli Eruvin ¹⁶⁸ Since ṭevel ¹⁶⁹ As Rashi points out in the Babli, the charcoal was glowing Friday evening at the start of the Sabbath but now it is cold. Otherwise, moving the coals would increase the flow of oxygen to the coals and stir the fire; this would be a transgression of a Biblical commandment and R. Simeon could not permit it. Since the coals could not be moved when Sabbath started, they cannot be moved during the entire Sabbath. ¹⁷⁰ If the desired piece is not visible, one must intentionally move the material serving as cover, and this is forbidden. But if some pieces are uncovered, they may be taken; ṭevel ¹⁷¹ A Tanna of whom only this baraita ¹⁷² If one uses a knife, he has the intention only to move what is permitted; in contrast, if one has to remove the cover to get to the figs, he would have to move things which he is forbidden to move. Rebbi Simeon always holds that unintended side effects of an action are not forbidden on the Sabbath since only מלאכת מחשבת “deliberate action” (Ex ¹⁷³ A slightly different version appears in Babli Šabbat ¹⁷⁴ On a dirt floor or outside. In the Babli, the meaning is made clearer: “One may drag … if he does not intend to make a groove.” In practical terms, this means that one may not drag the chair on the ground if the resulting groove is of any use. ¹⁷⁵ In this case, the groove will disappear by itself in the soft mud; it was not “made” since it has no permanence. ¹⁷⁶ In our Mishnah. (The language is slightly different from that of the Mishnah; it is influenced by Mishnah Šabbat ¹⁷⁷ Again in the Mishnah. The problem is that R. Simeon declares in Mishnah Ševiït ¹⁷⁸ The Biblical precept is that the produce of the Sabbatical year is to be eaten by man or animal (Lev

One sowed two kinds in a valley¹⁷⁹, two kinds in a dry spot¹⁸⁰, or two kinds that he separated¹⁸¹ by a fence. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is free from sanction¹⁸², Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is guilty¹⁸³.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that one who sows on the sea¹⁸⁴ 4:5. However, it is possible that “sea” here really means “lake” (since Hebrew ים means both sea and lake, as in ים כנרת “Lake Genezareth,”) and one excludes hydroponics from the rules of kilaim. This is the meaning of Tosephta Kilaim1:14: “If one sows seeds that grow on swamps, on dunes, he is guilty. But on rocks and on a water canal, he cannot be sanctioned.”, on a stone¹⁸⁵ on a rock” expresses the same thing in two languages., on a rock, on hard stones cannot be sanctioned¹⁸⁶. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that one who sows with the intention of erecting a fence¹⁸⁷ cannot be sanctioned. Rebbi Abba from Carthage said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that on the Sabbath it must come to rest¹⁸⁸1:1 (fol. 2b) that this is punishable only if all three actions have been completed. (This means that if one takes up something in the house, carries it outside and delivers it running to a relay of runners who never stop before the end of the Sabbath, he it is not punishable.) R. Simeon ben Laqish agrees that, even if one had the intention of putting the object down on the Sabbath, a punishable action did not occur as long as the piece had not been put down and come to rest.. Our Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If someone sows wheat and barley together, that is kilaim¹⁸⁹.” He explains it, if they are put inside a six¹⁹⁰ [hand-breadths] by six [hand-breadths] spot, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is not guilty unless there is a bare spot of six by six inside a grain field¹⁹¹ or enclosed by a fence¹⁹².

footnotes: ¹⁷⁹ “Valley” is a technical term for an agricultural area not accessible by a public road. ¹⁸⁰ In the context of agriculture, חורבה is derivate of חָרֵב I “to be dry, unfit for agriculture,” not from חָרֵב II “to be ruined.” ¹⁸¹ Only after they started growing. ¹⁸² פטור denotes an action that, while forbidden, is not punishable. ¹⁸³ He can be found guilty in court for violating the prohibition of kilaim ¹⁸⁴ The “sea” is a stone tub in the building of the olive press in which the harvested olives are stored before pressing, cf. Mishnah Baba Batra ¹⁸⁵ Greek πέτρα “rock by the sea, rocky peak”. “On a petra or ¹⁸⁶ One has to assume that there is a thin layer of earth on the stone, otherwise nothing would grow. But if the layer is thin, roots cannot spread and the kinds cannot mix. ¹⁸⁷ Before he started sowing, even if he erected the fence only afterwards. Since sowing vegetables on either side of a fence is permitted, sowing with the intention of putting up a fence is forbidden but not sanctionable. This contrasts with the next statement about R. Simeon ben Laqish’s position. ¹⁸⁸ On the Sabbath, moving something from a private to the public domain or vice versa is a desecration. Moving is defined as 1) taking up, 2) changing its place, and 3) putting down. R. Joḥanan is quoted in Tractate Šabbat ¹⁸⁹ There are no qualifications in the Mishnah. ¹⁹⁰ Since the measure is given by a number in the masculine, it must refer to hand-breadths (טפחים). A square of six by six cubits would be noted as שש על שש. ¹⁹¹ The minimal distances required for two adjacent fields of different crops are detailed in Mishnah 2:11; they are different for grains and vegetables. Rebbi Johanan asserts that infringing on these minimal distances is sinful but not punishable unless the grain field contains at least a surface area of one square cubit bare of the main crop. Then anything sown there is a punishable transgression, but an unavoidable occasional strange seed among the seed grain does not cause a punishable offense. ¹⁹² If inside a grain field one separates any area, even less that a square cubit, by erecting a fence, sowing any two kinds there is punishable since the minimal distances have not been observed.

Does Rebbi Judah say that in this case¹⁹³ or not? it is not kilaim? Rebbi Zeïra said, Rebbi Jehudah follows his own opinion, since Rebbi Jehudah said, in the case of a vegetable field one hand-breadth¹⁹⁴. Rebbi Yose said, he who wants to question this statement of Rebbi Zeïra might deduce the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah from that of the rabbis. Just as the rabbis say, in the case of the prohibition of *bet rova‘*¹⁹⁵, or one twenty-fourth of a seah, can be sown. Since the bet seah is standardized as 2500 square cubits, the bet rova‘ is 104.16̄ square cubits. A square of area of a bet rova‘ has edge length 10.20621 cubits. It is explained in Mishnah 2:11 that two fields of different kinds of grain have to be separated by a fallow bet rova‘. However, an infringement of this rule is not necessarily punishable in court by whipping since more narrow criteria apply in criminal cases where the rule of R. Joḥanan holds as explained in the previous paragraph. one needs six-by-six to whip, so Rebbi Judah said in the case of the prohibition of six-by-six¹⁹⁶ that one needs a hand-breadth to whip. But did we not state, Rebbi Judah permits it¹⁹⁷ which parallels the Mishnah states flatly that R. Jehudah permits this kind of sowing outright, not, as assumed here, forbidden but not punishable.? Then it is difficult: what is the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish¹⁹⁸? Since he threw it out from his hand as seed, he is guilty¹⁹⁹,” the act of sowing is forbidden, not its consequence in the soil. This explains why one had to state earlier that in respect of the laws of Sabbath, even R. Simeon ben Laqish requires that the seed come to rest on the ground.. But did we not state that “Rebbi Jehudah says, it is not kilaim?” Explain it, until the moment that it comes to rest²⁰⁰;” even if he had the intention of sowing kilaim but the wind carried the seeds away, there is no criminal act committed. Hence, in this interpretation intent alone cannot be the determining factor.. But was it not stated that Rebbi Judah permits it? Even if it came to rest, Rebbi Jehudah permits it²⁰¹. Rebbi Illaï said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion, since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Ḥizqiah: A vertex²⁰² from a dry spot is permitted. Then it also should be thus in the case of two wheat grains and one of barley²⁰³? That is correct. But did we not state, “unless there are two wheat kernels and one barley kernel, or one wheat kernel and two barley kernels, or one each of wheat, barley, and spelt?” Explain it if there is a grain of wheat on each side, a fence on each side, and the grain of barley caught in the middle²⁰⁴. Rebbi Mattaniah said, that is only if there is no dry spot, but if there is a dry spot there, it is permitted²⁰⁵.

footnotes: ¹⁹³ The case indicated by R. Joḥanan, that there was a bald spot of six-by-six in a field, and another kind was planted there. Does R. Jehudah accept this as kilaim ¹⁹⁴ In Mishnah 3:3. If one has vegetables planted in orderly rows and he desires to plant different vegetables in different rows, R. Jehudah requires that the rows be separated by “a foot width,” which is the same as a hand-breadth. ¹⁹⁵ The area in which a quarter kab ¹⁹⁶ In the same Mishnah 2:11 it is explained that the required space between two beds of different vegetables is only 36 square cubits. This is the criterion of what is permitted outright but R. Jehudah holds that a criminal infraction only occurs if the linear distance between two rows of vegetables is less than a hand-breadth. ¹⁹⁷ A baraita ¹⁹⁸ He declares any illegal sowing punishable. ¹⁹⁹ Since the verse reads, “do not sow your field kilaim ²⁰⁰ R. Simeon ben Laqish states his rule according to the rabbis. He will agree that R. Jehudah requires that the seeds actually fall to the ground, since it says “do not sow your field kilaim ²⁰¹ The previous interpretation is contradicted; R. Simeon ben Laqish only expresses his opinion according to the rules of the rabbis, not at all following R. Jehudah. ²⁰² ראש תור “ox head, trapezoid, vertex” describes the configuration in which two fields are not parallel but are at an angle to each other, so that a vertex of one field touches the other field in the middle of a side. (Musaphia wants to derive the expression from the Greek adjective τορός, ά, όν “sharp, piercing,” but probably it means ראש תור, “head of the line.”) It is spelled out in Mishnah 3:3 that in this case, no minimal distance has to be observed since the fields appear distinct by their neat geometrical form. Ḥizqiah adds that even if one of the fields does not have a regular shape, e. g., if it ends in a dry spot, if in the neighborhood of the other field it forms a triangle with a vertex touching the other field the leniency of ראש תור applies.Cf. the discussion of ראש תור in Chapter 2, Note 101. ²⁰³ The one barley grain should be ראש תור between the row of two wheat grains! ²⁰⁴ In this case, the configuration of ראש תור is excluded since the field represented by the barley grain enters the field represented by the wheat grains, and the minimal distances of separation will have to be observed. If the three grains are sown together in a straight line, the separation requirements are certainly violated. ²⁰⁵ Since Ḥizqiah admitted a ראש תור pointing to a dry spot, if the three kernels were sown in the neighborhood of a dry spot, R. Jehudah will recognize the barley grain as ראש תור. But in other circumstances, ראש תור is only admitted for rectangular fields. In the absence of a dry spot, the barley grain cannot possibly count as ראש תור and is forbidden.