MISHNAH: In a garden bed that is six by six hand-breadths¹ 84b; Rashi’s explanation is identical with one by an unnamed Gaon, Oẓar Hageonim Šabbat p. 83–86. [In all these discussions, “six hand-breadths” is used, not “one cubit,” since there is an opinion (Tosephta Kelim Baba Meẓia‘ 6:13) that in all that concerns kilaim, a cubit is only five hand-breadths. For the metric equivalents of these measurements, cf. Chapter 4, Note 2.] one may sow five kinds of seeds, four at its four sides and one in the middle², then the total cultivated area, in square hand-breadths, is f(a) = 4a(6 - 2a) + 0.5(6 - 2a)². A simple computation then shows that the maximum is attained for a = 1, f(1) = 24. R. Obadiah of Bertinoro objects to the use of diamonds in farming; his optimal solution has 4 1.5-by-3 rectangles along the sides and a single plant in the center of the square, total area 18+ε. A different approach by R. Ḥananel, based on the Halakhah here, leads only to a cultivated area of 13, and a more detailed analysis of the Halakhah by R. Simson to 15.04. R. Simson’s explanation is given in the Halakhah; the statement it refers to proves the existence of an arrangement of five different kinds, not the optimal arrangement.]. If it has a wall around it at least one hand-breadth high, one may sow in it thirteen kinds: three on each of the three sides of the wall, and one in the middle³. One should not plant a head of turnip in that wall because it fills it⁴. Rebbi Jehudah says, six kinds may be in the middle⁵ = √3.25, half the acute vertex angle is given by sin α = 2/3. Hence, the distance between two parallel edges of two parallel rhombs is d = l sin 2α = 1.792 1.5, and the arrangement is legitimate. If the inner ערוגה would be filled by 9 1-by-l diamonds, the distance between parallel patches would be only 1; this is too small. Hence, for regular patterns, 6 is the maximum number.) * This arrangement increases the number of kinds that can be sown but it does not change the total cultivated area. (According to R. Obadiah of Bertinoro, R. Jehudah refers only to the ערוגה that is surrounded by an earth wall, so that the corners can also be sown. His configuration is of six 2.25-by-1 rectangles separated by strips 1.5 wide, sitting on two parallel edges of the square.)*.

footnotes: ¹ This is the minimal size (about 0.3 m2) of a plot that can be planted with different kinds. The rules for garden beds are different from those of fields. If no trees are involved, then the only requirements are that the different kinds not be sown together and that they form distinct smaller beds (with straight boundaries), so that they should not appear continuous. It will be stated in later Mishnaiot that two different patches either may come together as the vertex of a triangle, ראש תור, touching a straight side, or that the two patches meet in a pair of vertical angles, or that the patch boundaries are parallel and separated, either by a ditch one hand-breadth deep and wide and six long, or by an earthwall one hand-breadth high and one wide, or by a strip of flat empty ground 1½ hand-breadths wide. The Halakhah will explain that under most circumstances, one must leave the corners of the ערוגה-square empty. The problem of interpretation of the Mishnah is to find a way that gives the farmer maximum use of his soil. The maximum problem was solved by Maimonides, whose interpretation we follow here. A similar explanation is given by Rashi, Babli Šabbat ² Divide the 6×6 plot into 36 squares of one hand-breadth edge length each. Along the four edges, the corner squares are left fallow. Then on each edge, a rectangle, 4 long and 1 wide, can be planted. These 4 rectangles can be planted with 4 different kinds since they meet only at a pair of vertical angles. Together, they contain 16 of the 1-by-1 squares. The interior edges of the rectangles enclose a 4×4 square. In this square, a square can be planted in the shape of a diamond, having its vertices at the midpoints of the inner edges of the rectangles. This is permitted as ראש תור since the rules of “jailing” do not apply to flower beds. The diagonals of the diamond have length 4; it covers exactly half of the internal square of 16 square hand-breadths. Hence, the entire cultivated area is 8 + 4×4 = 24 hand-breadths square.[If we assume that the fallow squares at the corners have edge length a ³ Since now the entire plot is 8-by-8 hand-breadths, if on the elevated border one leaves the corner 1-by-l square empty, one may plant on the border three different 1-by-l patches separated by the required 1.5 hand-breadths. Then in the middle one may plant one large diamond that touches the sides of the ערוגה at their midpoints. The total area is 64 square hand-breadths, the cultivated area is 4×3 + 18 = 30. ⁴ The leaves of the turnip will grow into the empty spaces between the different kinds and no separation will be visible. ⁵ If 12 little patches are sown on the border wall, the internal 6-by-6 bed may be planted in two rows of three rhombs each. Each rhomb is three high and two wide. (The edge length of each rhomb is l

HALAKHAH: (Is. 61:11) “Its sown seeds,” the minimum of seeds are two⁸ 9:2 as commentary on the Mishnah: “(R. Aqiba said,) from where do we know that one may sow five different kinds in a garden bed that is six-by-six hand-breadths, four at the four edges and one in the middle? For it is said: For as earth will produce its plants, and as a garden will make its seedlings germinate.… It does not say, ‘it will make germinate its seedling’ but ‘its seedlings.’ ” The verse uses a plural for the seedlings in a garden (interpreted as one garden bed); this proves only that it is possible to sow more than one kind.. Rebbi Samuel bar Sisarṭa⁹ p. 63). said, from two you infer four. Just as for two you start at the beginning of six and reduce continuously, so for four you start at the beginning of six and reduce continuously. It is impossible that there should not be a free space to plant in the middle¹⁰ empty, whose diagonal is 1.5 = a√2. Hence, a = 1.061; the bases of the triangle can only be 3.878 hand-breadths. In that case, the distance of the third vertex of the triangle from its base is equal to half the base on the edge, or 1.939 hand-breadths. The distance from the center is a = 1.061 1.5. In order to plant a single seed in the middle, it is therefore necessary to cut off the triangles at distance 1.5 from center and edge, creating four congruent trapezoids. The height of a trapezoid is h=1.5, its base 2b=3.878. By similar triangles, the length t of its top is given by 2b/b = t/(b-h) or t = 0.878. That makes it possible to plant a single fifth kind in a small space in the middle. The total area planted amounts to four times the area of the trapezoids, 15.044 square hand-breadths, plus the area of the small space in the middle. **. Rebbi Jonah said, working space joins working space but a kind does not meet another kind to jail it¹¹. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: “Its seed, its seeds, its sown seeds.¹² 61:11 and in a description of grain (Lev. 11:37): “seeds of seedlings that may be sown.” In contrast to modern dictionaries which take זרוע as a word different from זרע, the authors here take it as expansion of זרע “seed.” The root is expanded three times, by taking the plural, adding a possessive suffix, and adding the letter ו. Each change is taken as a plural, hence three plurals are added for a total of six.” That follows Rebbi Jehudah, since Rebbi Jehudah said six, “seed, its seed, its seeds, its sown seeds.” Rebbi Ḥaggai said, זרעיה has five letters; everywhere I find ו,י I delete them¹³. This was asked of Rav Huna, the scribe of the assembly, and he said, זרועיה is written plene¹⁴ writing refers to the masoretic spelling of the word; one has six letters supporting Rebbi Jehudah.. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: All inside of six¹⁵. Cahana in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: All at the outside of six¹⁶. Then we should state “nine!” Rebbi Tanḥum from Bostra¹⁷ said, that is true. But our Mishnah speaks of a garden bed in the middle of garden beds¹⁸ 86b). Otherwise, it really is possible to sow 9 kinds, as the Babli puts it (Šabbat 86a), in the case of a garden bed planted on land otherwise dry, with no other beds nearby. Rav in the Babli still admits only five kinds even on dry land..

footnotes: ⁸ The entire paragraph appears in Šabbat ⁹ He appears elsewhere as R. Samuel bar Sosarṭa, bar Sotar (Berakhot ¹⁰ The argument as explained by R. Simson: At the end of the paragraph, it is stated that one deals with a vegetable bed surrounded by other vegetable beds. The rules of “jailing” require that at the corners squares of one hand-breadth each must be empty. In order to grow two kinds of plants, one may sow two strips, each 4 hand-breadths long, along parallel edges, each one 2.25 hand-breadths wide, so that the required separation of 1.5 hand-breadths be observed in the middle. But then the argument may be used also for the other two edges. That means that one sows four triangular patches; each one has a base of 4 hand-breadths on an edge of the garden bed, with base angles of 45°. These triangles must be separated by strips 1.5 hand-breadths wide. This means that at the edges, we must leave a square of edge length a ¹¹ Each separate kind needs a working space around it, given by the strip of width 1.5 hand-breadths, but the same strip does serve two different kinds without problem. Also, the rules of “jailing” only apply to fields, not to garden beds. ¹² Here starts a new approach, that the verse itself implies more than 2 kinds. The word זרוּע appears only twice in the Bible, Is. ¹³ R. Ḥaggai assumes that originally all Hebrew spelling was what is called defective. Hence, any ו or י that is neither part of the root nor required by grammatical rules is considered an addition by later scribes and therefore is disregarded. That eliminates the ו but leaves the י which is required as sign of plural. One ends up with five letters, following the anonymous opinion in the Mishnah. ¹⁴ The spelling זירועיה in the text is certainly wrong since the expression of ־ֵ by י is standard only in Mishnaic and later texts, not in Biblical ones. Hence, the plene ¹⁵ All seeds are sown in the interior of the bed, away from the corners. ¹⁶ The corners at the boundary, which are at the outside, are sown. Then one may sow four 1-by-l corner patches, four 1-by-l patches at the center of each edge, and a center diamond, for a total of nine patches. ¹⁷ A student of R. Jeremiah and teacher of R. Eliezer ben R. Yose, from the town of Bostra, at the Southern border of the province of Trachonitis, on the road from Damascus to Edrei. ¹⁸ Since the rules of “jailing” apply to garden beds as a whole, not to smaller patches, the corners cannot be sown. This is the opinion of Samuel in the Babli (Šabbat

Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Immi were sitting and asking, did we not state: “If it had a wall around it at least one hand-breadth high, one may sow in it thirteen kinds: three at each of the three sides of the wall, and one in the middle.” Should we not state, ‘six in the middle?’¹⁹ Explain it if the walls diminish six²⁰. If the walls diminish six, is it that about which we stated: “Rebbi Jehudah says, six kinds may be in the middle?” We upheld it, but we do not know whether the colleagues upheld it or Rebbi Immi did; it refers to the beginning²¹. And if it refers to the beginning, it is that about which Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, 18²².

footnotes: ¹⁹ As was shown in the Mishnah, a six-by-six plot may be sown in six rhombs. ²⁰ The leaves of the three patches on the border wall hang down and leave less than a 6-by-6 plot in the middle. ²¹ Rebbi Jehudah disagrees with the anonymous Tanna of the first statement in the Mishnah and asserts that one may sow 6 distinct kinds in a garden bed. ²² This can only refer to the case of the garden bed with 12 little patches on the surrounding elevated wall and 6 rhombs in the middle, for a total of 18. This is possible since the outer patches are a hand-breadth higher than the planted rhombs which, therefore, do not have to be 1.5 hand-breadths distant from the border patches (the actual horizontal distance is only 1.5/√3.25 = .832.)

May one raze a bet rova‘ and sow in it five different kinds of grain²⁴ is 10.206 cubits (Peah, Chapter 2, Note 78). The Arabic verb קרח has many disparate meanings. One of them in the first conjugation is: “to dig a well”, another one in the eighth, “to improvise”. As noted in Chapter 2, Note 150, the derived noun קראח means “plot prepared for sowing”. Since Arabic terms for agriculture are mostly taken from the languages of sedentary people living near Arabia, it might be that הקריח is an unrecognized Hebrew verb meaning “to prepare for agricultural use”.? If about a six-by-six, for whose infringement one is whipped by Biblical decree²⁵, which for separation is only a rabbinical requirement, cannot have more stringent rules., you say it is permitted, then so much more here where you are not whipped by Biblical decree. May one raze at the corners of a six-by-six to make a continously narrowing patch²⁶? If in a case where working space does meet working space²⁷, you say that it is permitted, then so much more in this case where working space does not meet working space. That²⁸ was unnecessary. May one raze at the corners of a bet rova‘ to make a continously narrowing patch? If about a six-by-six, for whose infringement one is whipped by Biblical decree, you say it is permitted, then so much more here where you are not whipped by Biblical decree²⁹ one proposes to make trapezoids with sides inclined 45°, starting out at a distance of 1.061 from the vertex and narrowing to a distance of 1.5 from the center; see Note 10, fig. 3–4. In that case, the base is 8.084 cubits, the vertex of the isosceles triangle of angle 45° is again at distance a = 1.061 from the center and the length of the top of the trapezoid is again t = 0.878. Since in the trapezoidal configuration the plots do not touch, there is no question of “jailing”, which is permitted for garden beds and forbidden for larger fields; hence, what is permitted for garden beds in this case is also permitted for a bet rova‘. (The configuration of Maimonides cannot be carried over to larger fields.).

footnotes: ²⁴ In one of the patterns established for a garden bed, homothetically amplified. The side of a square containing a bet rova‘ ²⁵ As given in Mishnah 2:10, a violation of the requirement of a six-by-six empty space is punishable, but the six-by-six plot itself may be sown in different patches. Hence, the bet rova‘ ²⁶ Is the construction of the trapezoids described in the first paragraph of the Halakhah legitimate? ²⁷ In the case of the arrangement described in the Mishnah (following Maimonides and Rashi) there is no space reserved for working the patches; they cannot be shared. In the case of the trapezoids there is space reserved and the spaces are shared.Translation and explanation follow the Rome ms. in which the word שאין is missing. If the word is read, with the Leyden ms. and the Venice print, the argument following has no basis. ²⁸ The entire question, since the triangular-trapezoidal configuration described in the Halakhah is far from optimal as far as utilization of the soil is concerned. ²⁹ For a bet rova‘

Rebbi Nassa asked: Is it not reasonable that, if the top of the surrounding wall is two hand-breadths wide, one is permitted to sow on it two kinds³⁰? Rebbi Nassa asked: If he drew a string³¹ is that the patches in which different kinds are sown be divided by clear dividing lines and, as a rabbinic requirement, that the kinds be visibly separated, the erection of a symbolic wall satisfies the rabbinic requirement. The question is, how narrow is the minimum domain cordoned off by the פיאה? in the middle³², sowed in half of it, how far can he draw it? From what Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Immi said³³, “explain it if the walls diminish six,” that means that it may be even less³⁴, cf. Demai, p. 521. than that. Let us hear from the following³⁵ 2:9, with slightly changed language, תלמיות “little furrows,” instead of גוממיות “little holes.”: “In depressions that are one hand-breadth deep one may sow three seeds, one on each side and one in the middle.” That means, down to one hand-breadth³⁶. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana, Simeon from Nerash³⁷ in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: They taught “leaning towards a dry spot”³⁸ 85a. It is rejected there by Samuel, loc. cit. 85b.).

footnotes: ³⁰ Leave the outermost one hand-breadth square at the outer edge empty, then plant one hand-breadth square at the inner part of the 2-by-2 corner and then four times 1-by-l.5 of different kinds alternatingly on both sides of the wall along an edge, and so on all around the bed. ³¹ For this meaning of פיאה cf. Chapter 1, Note 159. Since in the absence of vines all that is demanded to avoid kilaim ³² Greek μέσος, η, ον “middle-, in the middle”. (Rome ms: נימוס.) ³³ Earlier in this Halakhah. ³⁴ Latin parum ³⁵ Tosephta Kilaim ³⁶ Any strip one hand-breadth wide may be cordoned off and sown in its entire length, irrespective of anything surrounding it. ³⁷ Nothing is known about him. Nerash is a town on the Euphrates (in the Babli its reputation is bad.) The word בר is missing in the Rome ms. ³⁸ The main point of this remark is in Halakhah 5. R. Simeon ben Laqish rejects the Tosephta quoted earlier which asserts that “a man may make little furrows in his field,” and asserts that seeds of three different species, planted along the diagonal of a unit square, are permitted only if the surroundings are dry spots, nothing is planted there, and one will be able to turn the leaves of the plants growing in the corners to the outside in opposite directions and the leaves of the plant growing in the middle in the direction of the other (perpendicular) diagonal. (This is the position of Rav in the Babli, Šabbat

Rebbi Zeïra said, they made every single hand-breadth³⁹ on the border wall a domain for itself. Then there should be 25, six on each side of the border wall and one in the middle! Is that so? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac objected: Did we not state⁴⁰ that “in a furrow or a water canal one hand-breadth deep one may sow (two)⁴¹ kinds of seeds, one on each side and one in the middle.” Should one not state five, two on each side⁴² and one in the middle? That is impossible; the two sides jail the middle one.

footnotes: ³⁹ Each 1-by-l square on the elevated wall. ⁴⁰ Mishnah 3:2. ⁴¹ Obviously, it should read “three” as in the Mishnah, but the same mistake “two” is found in both mss. ⁴² One at the bottom and one at the top, separated by a vertical distance of at least one hand-breadth. This arrangement does not have the exemption from the rules of jailing but is considered a regular field. Hence, the arrangement is impossible.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked: Does the border wall save vegetables from melons⁴⁴? If the border wall does not save different kinds of grains that are saved by 10.5 cubits⁴⁵, 10.21 cubits square (here rounded upwards to 10.5), and no border wall is ever mentioned in the rules that govern these fields. Squash and melon for whom we require a separation of 12 cubits along the entire length of the field cannot possibly have more lenient rules., does this not apply a fortiori to melons that are saved only by twelve cubits? Does planting melon save on top of the border wall⁴⁶? If different kinds of grains that are saved by 10.5 cubits are not saved on top of the border wall, does this not apply a fortiori to melons that are saved by eight cubits⁴⁷? Rebbi Judan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah, said, is that a reasoning a fortiori? It must be as follows: If different kinds of grains that are saved by 12.5⁴⁸ cubits are not saved on top of the border wall, does this not apply a fortiori to melons that are saved only by twelve cubits?

footnotes: ⁴⁴ Melons and squash whose stems grow meandering over large areas and whose leaves are broad are subject to special rules expressed in Mishnaiot 3:3 ff. Since they also can be counted as vegetables, do the leniencies of the border wall extend to these plants? ⁴⁵ Grains sown in fields must be separated by a bet rova‘ ⁴⁶ If a melon or squash is planted on top of the wall, may one sow other vegetables in the garden bed, immediately adjacent to that melon but one hand-breadth lower? ⁴⁷ Opinion of R. Aqiba in Mishnah 6, opposed by the Sages. If this is chosen, the argument goes the wrong way! ⁴⁸ This is clearly a scribal error; it must be 10.5 as above. The error must be an old one since it appears in both manuscripts.

MISHNAH: One does not sow any kind of seed-plants in a garden bed⁴⁹. What one does with a small plot planted only with one kind is not regulated here.; but one may sow any kind of vegetables in a garden bed. Mustard and smooth peas are counted as seed-plants, large peas are vegetables. A border wall that was one hand-breadth high and shrank is in order because it was in order at the start⁵⁰. In a furrow or a water canal one hand-breadth deep one may sow three kinds of seeds, one on each side and one in the middle.

footnotes: ⁴⁹ “Seed-plants” are plants whose seeds are used as food, such as grains and legumes. {Sometimes, זרעים denotes only grains.) “Vegetables” are plants whose edible parts are leaves and/or roots (e. g. cabbage or turnips) or the fruit is distinct from the seeds (e. g. cucumbers or melons.) Since it is not customary to sow such little quantities of seeds, one may not sow grains and similar produce in garden beds that contain multiple kinds of plants since it would look like kilaim ⁵⁰ The “start” is planting or sowing time when the full height is required.

HALAKHAH: “Any kind of seeds, etc.” Mustard and smooth peas are counted as seed-plants; if one sowed them for use as vegetables he may not put them in a garden bed. Large peas and Egyptian beans sown to produce seeds one may not put in a garden bed. If one sowed them for use as vegetables he may put them in a garden bed. All other garden seeds that are not eaten, even though one sowed to produce seeds, he may put them in a garden bed⁵¹2:8: “Mustard, beans, and oats, even if sown for use as vegetables, may be put in a garden bed. Large peas and Egyptian beans sown to produce seeds may be put in a garden bed; if one sowed them for use as vegetables he may not put them in a garden bed. All field or garden vegetables, even though one sowed to produce seeds, he may not put in one garden bed.” R. S. Lieberman prefers to read instead of שיפון “oats” שופין “smooth ones,” referring to beans, parallel to “peas” of the Mishnah. But the manuscripts of the Tosephta are too corrupt here to be of any value..

footnotes: ⁵¹ A similar text, likewise not free from corruption, is in Tosephta Kilaim

“If it shrank it is in order.” Rebbi Immi said, that means for the seeds that were already on it; hence, it is forbidden to sow anew. If one transgressed and sowed, since the earlier ones are permitted, so are the new ones. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: It is acceptable that if the later ones were uprooted, the earlier ones are permitted. If the earlier ones were uprooted, what is the status of the later ones? Let us hear from the following⁵² 19:6. One has to read ארוכות instead of ארובות. One speaks of a bed that has a wooden frame, consisting of two short (head- and foot-) boards and two long ones on the sides. The mattress lies on strings that are strung from one long board to the opposite one. The bed has become impure. It is a utensil, and any utensil can become pure either by immersion in a ritual bath (which is a problem for a large bed) or by becoming unusable. The Mishnah states that if the two long boards are broken we no longer have a bed and the remainder becomes pure, even if the boards are later replaced by new ones. But if the long boards are simply removed and replaced by new ones, the impurity is not removed, even if the replacement boards break, since the old ones could be returned to their place.: “If the two long boards of a bed were removed and one made two new ones in their stead but did not change the holes, if the new boards were broken, it is impure, if the old ones, it is pure, since all goes after the prior status.” That means, if the later ones were uprooted, the earlier ones are permitted. If the earlier ones were uprooted, the later ones are forbidden.

footnotes: ⁵² Mishnah Kelim

Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Zeïra and Rebbi Immi, both in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, one said one plants near a fence but not near a border wall⁵⁴, and the other said, a border wall which lost height is in order, hence a fence which lost height is invalid. But we do not know who said what. Since Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One plants near a fence but not near a border wall, this means Rebbi Immi is the one who said that a border wall that lost height is in order, hence a fence which lost height is invalid. Rebbi Yose said, we also did make both statements, that a border wall that lost height is in order, hence a fence that lost height⁵⁵ is invalid. One plants near a fence, as we have stated (Mishnah 2:8): “One does sow close to a fallow field, a plowed field, a stone wall, a foot path, a fence ten hand-breadths high.” One does not plant near a border wall, as we have stated (Mishnah 3:2): “In a furrow or a water canal that are one hand-breadth deep one may sow three kinds of seeds, one on each side and one in the middle.” If you say that one may sow close to a border wall, he should sow several rows down in the ditch. The colleagues said before Rebbi Samuel bar Abin: Explain it if the top of the border wall was sown⁵⁶. He said to them, if it is so, let him uproot that stem and sow several rows down in the ditch. Is it not better to uproot one stem and sow several rows down in the ditch?

footnotes: ⁵⁴ However, everybody agrees that one may sow דאש תור under all circumstances. This shows that the explanation of Maimonides in Mishnah 3:1, using a diamond-shaped field in the center עדוגה, is consistent with the Halakhah here, while R. Obadiah of Bertinoro’s explanation of the position of R. Jehudah is not.The statement means that one may sow close to the fence on both sides of the fence, even if the thickness of the fence is less than 1.5 hand-breadths, but sowing near a border wall that is 1 hand-breadth high requires one to leave half a hand-breadth empty in the עדוגה or on top of the wall adjacent to the ערוגה, for a total separation of 1.5 hand-breadths. ⁵⁵ To less than 10 hand-breadths, unless the fence itself was 1.5 hand-breadths wide. ⁵⁶ One may not sow parallel to it in the ditch unless the total distance was 1.5 hand-breadths. But a single seed acts as דאש תור and is permitted.

MISHNAH: It is permitted that a vertex of vegetables enter⁵⁷ a field of other vegetables, since it is visibly the end of its field⁵⁸. If one’s field was sown with vegetables and he wants to plant in it a row of a different vegetable, Rebbi Ismael says, not unless he has an open furrow from one end of the field to the other⁵⁹. Rebbi Aqiba says, a length of six hand-breadths for a full width⁶⁰. Rebbi Jehudah says, the width must be the width of the sole of a foot⁶¹ 11:10: “You did irrigate it with your foot like a vegetable garden.”.

footnotes: ⁵⁷ As before, “enter” means that it touches the last row of vegetables, not that there should be a straight line on which the last plant of the ראש תור is bordered on both sides by plants of the field. ⁵⁸ Visual separation is all that is needed. ⁵⁹ If the new vegetable is inside the field, there must be an empty open furrow on each side of the new vegetable. The six hand-breadths given as minimum separating distance in Mishnah 2:10 apply only to the distance between two vegetable fields, not to one row inside a field. ⁶⁰ “Full width” according to R. Simson means six hand-breadths; according to Maimonides it means the full depth of the furrow. Both explanations conllide with parts of the Halakhah. ⁶¹ Exactly one hand-breadth. The language of R. Jehudah refers to the verse Deut.

HALAKHAH: “A vertex⁶², etc.” Bar Qappara stated: He sows in it only one kind.

footnotes: ⁶² A quote from the Mishnah. However, the discussion is not about that sentence at all. In the opinion of R. Moses Margalit, the statement of Bar Qappara is out of place here and belongs to the Mishnah quoted last in the preceding Halakhah, about the ditch that is one hand-breadth deep. According to the more likely opinion of R. Eliahu Fulda, the statement refers to the one row of vegetables that one plants in a field of other vegetables.

What did Rebbi Ismael say about the width? Now if Rebbi Aqiba, who encloses it from three sides, requires a full width, Rebbi Ismael who encloses it by two rows⁶³, not so much more⁶⁴, R. Aqiba must be less restrictive than R. Ismael. This is the case since R. Aqiba requires only a separation along six hand-breadths. But then, in order for the argument to make sense, “a full width” must mean the maximum separation mentioned in the Mishnah, i. e., six hand-breadths. Otherwise, R. Ismael could be more restrictive than R. Aqiba even in regard to width. Hence, the explanation of Maimonides of the Mishnah cannot be accepted.? What does Rebbi Ismael say about a row of vegetables in a grain field⁶⁵? Now if Rebbi Aqiba, who is more lenient here, is restrictive there, Rebbi Ismael, who is more restrictive here, certainly will be restrictive there! No, this is not necessarily so. What does Rebbi Ismael say there about width? As we say there, there is no difference between Rebbi Aqiba and Rebbi Ismael in matters of width⁶⁶ 2:13, reads: “Whether there be a row of melon or a row of any other vegetable in a grain field, a length of 10.5 cubits by a width of six hand-breadths.”.

footnotes: ⁶³ In the Rome ms: חובש משתי שורות, “encloses by two rows.” R. Aqiba permits the insert to be enclosed even from three sides. R. Ismael insists that strictly only two sides are permitted; therefore, he must require that the dividing empty furrow extend from one end of the field to the other. ⁶⁴ For an argument a fortiori ⁶⁵ This is the topic of Mishnah 7; there a separation of six hand-breadths is quoted as universally accepted opinion. ⁶⁶ Since the relevant statement is anonymous. The corresponding statement of the Tosephta, Kilaim

Samuel said, they taught only one row⁶⁷, hence two are forbidden. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say that there is no difference between one and two rows.

footnotes: ⁶⁷ “A row” mentioned in the Mishnah may mean “one row.” In Samuel’s opinion, two rows form a field and are subject to the rules of Mishnah 2:10.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is permitted to split four rows in an open field⁶⁹. Rebbi Joḥanan said, only if the two outer rows be⁷⁰ treated as garden beds. Rebbi Zeïra said, only if three are within six⁷¹.

footnotes: ⁶⁹ בקעה (Arabic בֻּקעַה) everywhere is agricultural land accessible only by footpaths, not by public road. At such a place not visited by non-farmers, R. Simeon ben Laqish permits an insert of up to four rows in a field growing other kinds. ⁷⁰ Version of the Rome ms: “That they cannot be treated.” This reading seems to be the original one. Four rows are permitted only if those adjacent to the other crops are single rows, not garden beds, since otherwise no clean separation of the vegetable rows and the rest of the crop is possible. ⁷¹ The rows must be compact, not more than two hand-breadths allotted to each row. Together with a separation of six hand-breadths from the rest of the crop, this makes for a neat insert.

Rebbi Ḥuna said, what is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah⁷² 85a), this is the opinion of R. Zeïra (Zera). It would appear that the author here is not the Galilean Rebbi Huna but the Babylonian Rav Huna, teacher of R. Zeïra. This paragraph can be added to the list of parallels given in the Yerushalmi in the name of a Babylonian and in the Babli in the name of a Galilean.? (Deut. 11:10) “That you irrigated with your feet as in a vegetable garden.” What is the measure of a foot sole? A hand-breadth.

footnotes: ⁷² In the Babli (Šabbat

We have stated the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah here, and we have stated it there⁷³. If it had been stated here but not there, we would have said that just as Rebbi Jehudah who is restrictive here⁷⁴ is permissive there, the rabbis who are permissive here certainly will be permissive there. Hence, it is necessary to state there. Or if it was stated there but not here, we would have said that just as the rabbis who are restrictive there are permissive here, Rebbi Jehudah who is permissive there certainly will be permissive here. Hence, it is necessary to state both here and there.

footnotes: ⁷³ In Mishnah 3:1, where the rabbis permit only five kinds in a garden bed but Rebbi Jehudah permits six. ⁷⁴ Rebbi Jehudah requires a full hand-breadth of empty space as walkway between the two parts of the field. The rabbis require less, according to the argument here. The problem is that the rabbis are not mentioned here, nor are they in any parallel Tosephta. By the rules of decision accepted in the Babli, practice follows R. Aqiba against any one of his colleagues. If we accept this here, then the explanation of R. Aqiba’s statement in the Mishnah must follow Maimonides and the opinion of R. Simson becomes unacceptable! There is no indication that the Yerushalmi accepts that rule; in addition, R. Aqiba here disagrees with two of his colleagues, so that there is a two to one majority which rejects his position. We must assume that in the opinion of the Yerushalmi, the rabbis will be ready to accept any furrow as separation, without prescribing any minimal width.

MISHNAH: If someone plants two rows of green melons, two rows of pumpkin, two rows of Egyptian beans, this is permitted⁷⁵. The restrictions apply only to these kinds of vegetables.. One row of melons, one row of pumpkin, one row of Egyptian beans is forbidden. One row each of melons, pumpkin, Egyptian beans, and one row of melons, Rebbi Eliezer permits but the Sages forbid. One may plant melon and pumpkin in the same hole on condition that one of them points to one side, the other to the other side⁸⁶. (One plants so that the hair of one be here, the hair of the other one there, for what the Sages forbade is only because of the misleading impression.)⁸⁷, Institute of the Complete Israeli Talmud, Jerusalem 1972. If the text were original, the Halakhah would discuss it. In addition, the verb גזר in the acceptation “to decree” is Babylonian only (cf. Demay Chapter 1, Note 89).

footnotes: ⁷⁵ We are now talking about one field on which several kinds of vegetables are planted. If there are two rows, each of them appears as a separate planting if a certain amount of separation is kept between rows of different kinds; this is permitted. The plants enumerated here are those with meandering stems and very broad leaves; in that case, single rows are not easily kept apart and the field looks like kilaim ⁸⁶ They have to grow out of their common hole in two opposite directions. The hole presumably is square and the two plants are planted in opposite corners. ⁸⁷ In the Leyden ms., the text in parentheses is written on the margin. In many Mishnah mss., the text is missing. It must be an old gloss that entered the text; cf. Mishnah with Variant Readings

HALAKHAH: “If one plants two rows”, etc. Ḥizqiah said, there is disagreement. He who says there 12 [cubits], here also 12 [cubits]⁷⁷. He who says there eight, here also eight. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this Mishnah is according to everybody. A strip of melon is good enough among strips of melons to be saved by eight⁷⁸.

footnotes: ⁷⁷ The reference is to the next Mishnah, where planting onions (with no spreading leaves at all) and melons (with very large, spreading leaves) in one field is discussed. It is established there that one row of melons or pumpkins needs a strip four cubits wide. Hence, two rows create a strip eight cubits wide. The distance between the two adjacent kinds, melon on one side and Egyptian beans on the other, therefore is eight cubits (plus two hand-breadths for an empty furrow on each side.) This corresponds to the opinion of R. Aqiba in the next Mishnah. However, the Sages in the next Mishnah require a swath 12 cubits wide between the two outer kinds, that is three rows of each kind. Hence, Ḥizqiah is of the opinion that the Mishnah here follows R. Aqiba and not the anonymous Sages, even though it is formulated as an anonymous statement. ⁷⁸ In R. Joḥanan’s opinion, the sages require 12 cubits only between squash and onion, completely different plants. But melon and pumpkin grow in the same fashion (and, it seems, also Egyptian beans, which might not be beans in the botanical sense). In that case, the Sages also will require only strips 8 cubits wide and the Mishnah does not indicate that practice follows R. Aqiba.

How long does it have to be to jail⁷⁹? Rebbi Zeïra said, let us infer it from a vineyard. Just as you say in regard to a vineyard that there is no difference between length and separation⁸⁰, so here also there is no difference between length and separation. That is fine according to the opinion of Ḥizqiah; there eight⁸¹ and here also eight⁸². According to Rebbi Joḥanan, with how much will it jail? If you say with eight, is there an argument a fortiori⁸³,y,z, …), B(x,y,z, …) and a partial ordering by severity. I. e., if A(x) expresses an action that is legal and B(x) one that is illegal, we note A(x) B(x). Similarly, if both actions are illegal but the punishment for A(x) is less than that for B(x), then A(x) B(x). The rule now is: if it is known that A(x1, …, xn*) * B(x1, …, xn), but nothing is known about A(x1, …, xn*, u)* and B(x1, …, xn*,* u), then the consistency of the logical system requires the assertion A(x1, …xn*, u) * B(x1,… xn*, u)* meaning that B(x1,… xn*, u)* cannot be strictly less severe than A(x1, … xn*, u);* but if in all other respects B is strictly more severe than A, it cannot be asserted that with respect to u B must be more severe than A. (Cf. H. Guggenheimer, Logical Problems in Jewish Tradition, in: Confrontations with Judaism, ed. Ph. Longworth, London, 1967, pp. 171–196.) that a strip of melons among onions will jail only with twelve? But a melon strip, which you empowered among melon strips to save by a mere eight, will be jailed by eight, melon strips among onions, which you weakened to save only by twelve, certainly will be jailed only by eight. If you say that a melon strip among onions will be jailed only by twelve, then an argument a fortiori shows that a melon strip among melons should be jailed only by twelve.

footnotes: ⁷⁹ How long do the rows of vegetables have to be that the rules of “jailing” do apply, that one kind cannot be surrounded on all four sides by other kinds of vegetables. ⁸⁰ Width is called here “separation” since all assertions about separations are formulated by the number of rows, i. e., by width. For vineyards, the main rule precribes the same separation in all directions, i. e., in a circle centered in the offending growth (Mishnah 5:5). ⁸¹ Eight cubits of separation are indicated both in Mishnah 3:6 for the planting of broad-leaved vegetables with other vegetables, as also in Mishnah 4:8 for the vineyard. (For single plantings in a vineyard, one needs a separation of 16 cubits, Mishnah 5:5). ⁸² Eight cubits length of the planted row. ⁸³ Given two predicate functions A(x

So far if [the planting] is covering [the entire area]. What about producing single stalks? Just as you say of a vineyard that there is no difference between covering or producing [single stalks], so here also there is no difference between continuous planting or producing single stalks.

Rebbi Yannai said, it is a controversy whether two kinds join together to save but do not join together to prohibit⁸⁴. Rav said, it is everybody’s opinion that just as two kinds join together to save so they do join together to prohibit. Our Mishnah supports Rebbi Yannai, as we have stated: “Rebbi Eliezer permits it.” Our Mishnah differs with Rav: “One row of melons, one row of pumpkin, one row of Egyptian beans, and one row of melons.” Before he started the fourth one, was it not already forbidden? Explain it that he planted the four rows simultaneously⁸⁵.

footnotes: ⁸⁴ According to R. Yannai, when R. Eliezer permits four rows with the two middle ones of different kinds, he cannot forbid three rows of different kinds, and the previous statement about three single rows follows the Sages but not R. Eliezer, as noted later in this paragraph, since otherwise three are already forbidden and the fourth row, which makes matters worse, could not make the first three permitted again. According to Rav, everybody agrees that if between two rows of the same kind there are at least eight cubits distance, then R. Eliezer permits the planting, but in the case of only three rows he will join his colleagues in forbidding it. ⁸⁵ This tortured explanation is needed only for Rav.

“One may plant melon”, etc. It was stated⁸⁸ 2:9. There, the text reads “four kinds,” somewhat more explicit and less restrictive than the wording given here.: “One may make a small hole in one’s field, one hand-breadth deep, sow in it four seeds, and turn them to the four directions of the compass.” Rebbi Abba bar Cahana, Simeon of Nerash in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: That was taught regarding those which lean towards a dry spot⁸⁹. Rebbi Mana asked, if we deal with those that lean towards a dry spot, should we not state “eight,” two on each of the edges⁹⁰?

footnotes: ⁸⁸ Tosephta Kilaim ⁸⁹ See above, Halakhah 1. One can turn each growing plant away from the others only if outside there is space, not in a field. Hence, the Mishnah, if interpreted according to this statement, disagrees with the Tosephta. ⁹⁰ The hole is square. An “edge” of the square is a semi-open interval which contains one of its endpoints but not the other. Then one may plant one seed at the endpoint and one at the midpoint of the edge, let the seed in the corner grow in the opposite direction of the diagonal, and the one planted in the middle of the edge perpendicular to the edge towards the outside. The question is not answered, but for broad-leaved plants the scenario is impossible.

MISHNAH: If one’s field was sown with onions and he desired to plant there rows of pumpkin, Rebbi Ismael says, he uproots two rows, plants one row, and leaves two rows of onion standing, uproots two rows, plants one row⁹¹. Rebbi Aqiba says, he uproots two rows, plants two rows, and leaves two rows of onion standing, uproots two rows, plants two rows⁹². But the Sages say, if between one row and the next is less than twelve [cubits], he should not keep the seeds in between⁹³.

footnotes: ⁹¹ A row of vegetables together with its surroundings is four cubits wide. In the interpretation of Maimonides, R. Ismael requires that a swath eight cubits wide be cleared, in which a row of pumpkin four cubits wide is planted. Hence, in the interpretation given in the Halakhah, he envisages a field with a regular pattern: Eight cubits wide onions, two cubits fallow, four cubits pumpkins, two cubits fallow, eight cubits onions, etc. (R. Simson takes the Mishnah to mean that eight cubits have to be fallow between any two beds of onion.)Since onions usually are planted, not sown, either the language of the Mishnah is imprecise or one speaks of a field in which onions were sown and then thinned to produce straight rows. ⁹² R. Aqiba requires only one furrow between different kinds. He has parallel strips of equal width, alternatingly pumpkins and onions. Then the farmer has to watch closely lest the pumpkins expand into the domain of the onions. (R. Simson holds also in this case that eight cubits have to be fallow between any two beds of onions; R. Aqiba holds that four of these eight are for tending the onions, four for tending pumpkins, and that for a single row of pumpkins one does not have to provide space around them. He holds that for a single row of pumpkins, R. Aqiba requires only four cubits to be fallow between any two beds of onions.) ⁹³ In the interpretation of Maimonides, the Sages require only that between any two strips of pumpkin there be 12 cubits distance, but they do not require any fallow land between pumpkins and onions, except for the obligatory single furrow. In the interpretation of R. Simson, the total fallow land between two such rows must be 12 cubits, or six cubits between any two strips of differing kinds.

HALAKHAH: (He who plants his vineyard, etc.)⁹⁴. Cahana said, according to the words of Rebbi Ismael sometimes there are 16, sometimes 12, sometimes 8⁹⁵. When he gives all the working space in the interior, 16. Part interior and part exterior, 12. All exterior, 8. Samuel says, it always must be 12⁹⁶.. We have stated thus: “It is determined according to the statements of both of them: Rebbi Ismael says 12, Rebbi Aqiba says 8.” Now, Rebbi Ismael says 12, and the rabbis say 12; in what do they disagree? Closing up! In the opinion of Rebbi Ismael one may not close up, but the rabbis say he may⁹⁷.

footnotes: ⁹⁴ This should be a quote from the Mishnah but is from Mishnah 4:9 and should be disregarded. ⁹⁵ According to Rav Cahana, all R. Ismael requires is an empty swath four cubits wide, but its placement is arbitrary. Hence, if the pattern is 4 cubits pumpkin, 4 cubits empty, 8 cubits onions, 4 cubits empty, 4 cubits pumpkin, the distance from the last row of the first set of pumpkins to the first row of the second set of pumpkins is 4+8+4 = 16 cubits. If the pattern is regular, as explained in the Mishnah, the distance is 2+8+2 = 12. If the empty spaces are all at the far side of the pumpkins, away from the onions, then the space is only 8 cubits (+ the space of the required furrows, half of which can be accounted for by the rows of pumpkins, leaving one hand-breadth empty from the space of the onions.) ⁹⁶ This is the pattern explained in Note 92, regular empty spaces two cubits wide between any two different species. This interpretation is accepted because it is supported by the following baraita ⁹⁷ R. Ismael requires empty strips two cubits wide but the rabbis would accept an onion patch 12 cubits wide, separated from the pumpkins only by an empty furrow.

MISHNAH: Pumpkin in the middle of vegetables goes by the rules of vegetables⁹⁸ on fields, we are back to considering fields, not garden plots. The rule referred to is Mishnah 2:10 which prescribes an empty space of six by six hand-breadths square., in the middle of grain it needs a bet rova‘. If one’s field was sown with grain and he desired to plant there one row of pumpkin⁹⁹, he must allow six hand-breadths to tend it.¹⁰⁰ 3:13), following the Gaonim, he requires only that grain be removed if the leaves of the pumpkin grow over the entire strip. R. Abraham ben David also adheres to the Gaonic interpretation. R. Simson is silent in the matter.] If it grows, he has to uproot before it. Rebbi Yose said, he allows four cubits to tend it. They¹⁰⁴ said to him, are you making this more restrictive than for a vine? He said to them, we find that this case is more restrictive than that of a vine. For a single vine¹⁰⁵ one allows six hand-breadths to tend it, but for a single pumpkin a bet rova‘. Rebbi Meir says in the name of Rebbi Ismael, if there are three pumpkin plants in a bet seah one should not sow¹⁰⁶ in that bet seah. Rebbi Yose, the son of the Snatcher from Efrat¹⁰⁷, says in the name of Rebbi Ismael, if there are three pumpkin plants in a bet kor one should not sow in that bet kor¹⁰⁸= 25'000 square cubits..

footnotes: ⁹⁸ In this last Mishnah dealing with kilaim ⁹⁹ Adhering to the minimal length of a row as given in Chapter 2. ¹⁰⁰ Even though pumpkin plants spread widely, to start out one needs only a separating strip six hand-breadths wide for access. However, if the pumpkin should spread to the fallow strip, one must remove additional grain to maintain an access strip to the pumpkins that is one cubit wide. [This is the interpretation of Maimonides in his Commentary; in his Code (Kilaim ¹⁰⁴ The anonymous Sages to R. Yose. This Mishnah is the continuation of the previous one. ¹⁰⁵ Not only a single vine, but up to five vines in a single row; cf. Mishnah 4:5 according to the House of Hillel. ¹⁰⁶ Sowing grain, the topic discussed in the Mishnah. R. Ismael, in this version, expects a single pumpkin plant to spread over 2500/3 = 833.3 square cubits. ¹⁰⁷ This personage is mentioned only here; nothing is known about him. ¹⁰⁸ In this version, a single pumpkin occupies 10 bet seah

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said: The words of Rebbi Ismael imply that one allows space for tending even for a single row.¹⁰¹

footnotes: ¹⁰¹ This sentence seems to indicate that the Mishnah follows R. Ismael. This is convincing, as R. Aqiba in the previous Mishnah requires only one furrow of separation. (Commentary by R. Eliahu Fulda.)

Does one allow space for tending the first plant? Just as you say in regard of a vineyard that one gives space for tending the first plant, so here also one allows space for tending the first plant¹⁰² 2:13. Since it is formulated as an Amoraic argument, that Tosephta was not known to the editors of the Yerushalmi.. May one sow between the holes¹⁰³? Just as you say in regard of a vineyard that one may not sow between the vines, so here also one may not sow between the holes.

footnotes: ¹⁰² This is an explicit Tosephta, Kilaim ¹⁰³ This refers to pumpkins that are not sown but planted, transferred as saplings from another plot where many seeds were grown. The saplings are put into separate depressions, very widely spaced. Does one have the right to sow plants between these depressions as long as the pumpkin has not spread into the cubit adjacent to the seeds? (If the pumpkin spreads, then the Mishnah has stated that one must clear the ground before it.)

Rebbi Jonah asked: If somebody planted five pumpkins and trained them to grow on a fence, does one give it the rules of a trellis¹⁰⁹?

footnotes: ¹⁰⁹ It is explained in Mishnah 6:1 that five vines in a row growing on a trellis form a vineyard and, therefore, require the full space of four cubits for tending. The question is whether pumpkins climbing a fence as trellis also are considered a full row and need separation on both sides. The question is not answered.

Does one estimate so for all kinds of pumpkins¹¹⁰? Every place at which you made green melon and Egyptian beans equal to Greek gourd, you make Egyptian pumpkin equal to Greek gourd. Here, where you did not make melon and Egyptian beans equal to Greek gourd, you do not make Egyptian pumpkin equal to Greek gourd.

footnotes: ¹¹⁰ Is “pumpkin” in the Mishnah a generic name, or does it apply only to Greek gourd that has the most expansive leaves? The Mishnah applies only to Greek gourd. Melon and Egytian beans are treated in parallel with pumpkin in Halakhah 2:11.

Why did they not object to him¹¹¹: If someone keeps single fresh stalks growing to produce seeds, must he not clear around them a bet rova‘ or fence them in by a fence of ten hand-breadths? For a row one is more lenient¹¹². Nevertheless, if the plants raised for seeds form a row, they are under the general rules for rows. This is all according to the anonymous majority opinion in the Mishnah. Hence, for them, the argument of R. Yose is totally irrelevant, since his argument is about single plants!. Since they did not object to him, it follows that Rebbi Yose thinks that row and square¹¹³ are the same. For Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose the Galilean¹¹⁴ said in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: He who keeps a single fresh stalk growing to produce seeds must clear around it a bet rova‘ or fence it in by a fence of ten hand-breadths, even if it is the same kind¹¹⁵. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya objected before Rebbi Zeïra, did we not state¹¹⁶ 4:5: “If coriander was sown for its seeds, the greens of it are exempt; if it is sown for greens, both greens and seeds must be tithed.” The question is really about the second part of the sentence, not quoted in the text: If it is sown for greens, the seeds also must be tithed. Hence, the seeds cannot be considered a different crop. Why should plants grown for seeds have to be fenced off from the rest of the field? The answer is that they do not have to be fenced off but that the rule of R. Yose ben R. Ḥanina refers only to plants whose seeds are not eaten with the rest of the plant.: “If coriander was sown for its seeds, its greens are exempt?” He answered him, coriander is a special case since both the plant and its seeds are eaten.

footnotes: ¹¹¹ Why did the Sages not find an answer to the argument of R. Yose in the Mishnah? ¹¹² If a plant is grown for its greens and the seeds are not edible, then, as will be stated, plants grown for seeds are considered a kind different from those grown for food and, on a field, are subject to all rules of separation for kilaim ¹¹³ One plant in the middle of a square as in Mishnah 5:5. ¹¹⁴ The third generation Amora, not the third generation Tanna whose title is always given in Hebrew. ¹¹⁵ If a vegetable is grown for its edible parts then the same vegetable grown to produce seeds has the status of a different crop. ¹¹⁶ Mishnah Ma‘serot

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, come and see the difference between the early and the late statements of Rebbi Ismael! He started out with a bet kor and ended up with a bet seah́¹¹⁷ and bet seah in the statement to adapt them to the order of the Mishnah.)!

footnotes: ¹¹⁷ Since it is known that Rebbi Meir went to study with R. Ismael after the death of R. Aqiba, the opinion first quoted in the Mishnah in the name of R. Ismael is in fact the opinion of R. Ismael in his old age. It follows that the second opinion in the Mishnah is earlier in time; it may be ascribed to R. Ismael in his earlier years. (This is the explanation of R. Moses Margalit, supported by the mss. R. Simson switches bet kor