MISHNAH: A bald spot in a vineyard¹ in a vineyard, where the rules have to be more strict than for fields since other crops in a vineyard make everything “sanctified”. For a biblical basis of the treatment of a partially dead vineyard, cf. Chapter 7, Note 44. A dried-up vineyard cannot be successfully replanted unless lupines and other nitrogen-enriching plants grow there for a few years. The vintner will want to sow these plants as soon as possible. Instead of interpreting קרחת הכרם as “bald spot in a vineyard” one might think of “agricultural area in a vineyard”, cf. Chapter 2, Note 150.: the House of Shammai say 24 cubits² 17:11 which states that some authorities define liquid measures as Roman. The Roman quartarius, equivalent to the Jewish reviït, is 133 cm³. The Yerushalmi states in Pesaḥim10:1 (fol. 37c) that the reviït is 7⅓ cubic digits [the Babli (Pesaḥim 109a) defines it as 10.8 cubic digits.] The Yerushalmi digit is therefore the cube root of (133/7.3333)cm³ or 2.63 cm. Then the cubit of 24 digits is 63 cm. (The corresponding Babylonian cubit would be only 55.5 cm.) On the other hand, Rashi (Erubin 60b) defines the cubit used for measuring terrain as half a pace, 2000 cubits being 1000 paces or one mile. If one uses the Roman mile (1000 passus) of 1473 m, one obtains 73.7 cm for the cubit. If Rashi would define the half-step as two Parisian feet, one would obtain 65 cm, in reasonable correspondence with the Yerushalmi cubit derived earlier, but if he would refer to half an aune, his cubit would be 59 cm, closer to the Babylonian standard. In Tosephta Kelim Baba Meẓi‘a 6:13, R. Meïr states that all cubits referred to in the laws of a vineyard are cubits of five hand-breadths. This makes the Palestinian vineyard cubit 20 digits or 52.6 cm, close to the standard Babylonian cubit. but the House of Hillel say 16 cubits. The circumference³ of a vineyard: the House of Shammai say 16 cubits but the House of Hillel say 12 cubits. What is a bald spot in a vineyard? A vineyard that dried up in the middle; if there are less than 16 cubits one should not bring seeds there⁴. If there are 16 cubits, one allows it space to be tended⁵ and the rest one may sow. What is the circumference of a vineyard? Between the vineyard and the fence. If less than 12 cubits are there, one should not introduce seeds there. If 12 cubits are there, one gives it²⁴ space for tending and sows the remaining area. Rebbi Jehudah says, that is only the fence of a vineyard²⁹. What is the circumference of a vineyard? A vineyard between two Vineyards. What is a fence³⁰? If it is ten hand-breadths high, and a ditch is ten deep and four wide³¹ 7:14), “four handbreadths wide” applies equally to the fence (presumably, a stone fence) and a ditch..

footnotes: ¹ Here start the rules for kilaim ² The cubit used to measure vessels can be determined from Mishnah Kelim ³ From the root חול “to turn in a circle,” from which also the Biblical homonym מחול “fife.” The rules of bald spots at the outer edge of a vineyard are given in Mishnah 2. ⁴ The rules given here apply if the bald spot contains a circle of 16 cubits diameter (for the House of Hillel), i. e., if there is a point in the bald spot from which the minimal distance to any living vine is at least 8 cubits. ⁵ The space needed to tend a vineyard is a path 4 cubits wide so that the ox-drawn cart of the vintner may move there. Even though the House of Hillel forbid sowing if the minimal width is less than eight cubits, if somebody sowed illegally on a smaller patch neither the seeds nor the vines become “sanctified” as long as a minimal distance of 4 cubits is observed everywhere (Mishnah 7:3). ²⁴ The vineyard. One leaves four cubits near the vines empty. ²⁹ In his opinion, one may sow at a distance of four cubits from any vine between the vineyard and the fence. ³⁰ From here to the end of the Mishnah the statement is generally accepted; this is no longer R. Jehudah’s statement. The question is not what is a fence or a ditch materially but what legally counts as fence or ditch. ³¹ In the interpretation of Maimonides (Kilaim

HALAKHAH: “A bald spot in a vineyard.” Rebbi Joḥanan said that the rules for a bald spot in a vineyard and a dried-up vineyard⁷ are the same. A bald spot is cleared in its middle, a dried-up vineyard is cleared on all four sides⁸. Rebbi Yose said, this applies to a large vineyard but if it comes from the plants of a small vineyard⁹, the rules of a bald spot in a vineyard do not apply. Also, we have stated¹⁰ 3:1: “What is a bald spot in a vineyard? A vineyard that dried up in its middle but four or five vines remained, whether it be from all four sides, or from three, or from two opposite sides.” [R. Saul Lieberman has an ingenious explanation to harmonize Mishnah, Tosephta, and Yerushalmi, (תוספתא כפשוטה, p. 621) which, however, contradicts both the definition of קרחת הכדם (loc. cit., a few lines earlier) and the fact that in all sources of the Tosephta the numerals are spelled out and not abbreviated. Similarly, R. Moses Margalit presents an extremely elegant solution but it seems contradicted by Rebbi Joḥanan in the next paragraph.]: “What is a bald spot in a vineyard? A vineyard that dried up in its middle but enough for a vineyard remained, whether it be from all four sides, or from three, or from two opposite sides.” How is that? Five rows of seven each¹¹, one took out one row of vineyard¹², that leaves four vineyards and three intervals. One takes out another one, that leaves three vineyards and two intervals. One takes out another one, that leaves two vineyards and one interval.

footnotes: ⁷ The rules of the dried spot are explained in Mishnah 5:1. ⁸ The dry spot reaches the border of the vineyard at 1, 2, 3, or 4 sides. ⁹ As explained in Mishnah 4:6, a minimal vineyard is formed by two rows, one with two, the other one with three vines in two parallel rows. A small vineyard here is one of which a circle of 16 cubits diameter has been cleared and no two minimal vineyards are still standing. ¹⁰ A similar statement is Tosephta Kilaim ¹¹ The commentators want to change “7” into “5” but this is not warranted. The large vineyard of five rows of seven vines each contains 35 vines. A minimal vineyard has five vines. If three minimal vineyards are removed, 20 vines remain along the edges. ¹² כרם is a vineyard, כרמון (a word not recognized by the dictionaries) is not quite a vineyard. It is a row of five vines which according to the Mishnah do not form a vineyard for the House of Hillel, but will form one if the vines are drawn on a trellis as explained in Mishnah 6:1 and at the end of the Halakhah, Note 22. In our case, one takes out one row, given in the figure as o. Then one takes out two more minimal vineyards (see Note 9), indicated by c and e. The vines left standing are indicated by x. One cannot do a similar construction with less than a 5-by-7 vineyard. The distance between two vines usually is four cubits; then between first and last row the empty space is a required 16 cubits.FIGURE 4–1 HERE

Cahana said, they made it like the start of its planting. The House of Shammai say, 24 at the start of planting, 24 at its destruction¹³. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the House of Shammai are more restrictive in its destruction than at the start of its planting. At the start of its planting 16, at its destruction 24. In every case, the House of Shammai add one third¹⁴: The circumference of a vineyard, according to the House of Shammai 18, according to the House of Hillel 12¹⁵. But did we not state: “The circumference of a vineyard, the House of Shammai say 16 cubits, the House of Hillel say 12 cubits.¹⁶ is not otherwise preserved.” Some want to say, deduct from this four cubits for tending, there remain 12 cubits according to the House of Shammai and 8 following the House of Hillel¹⁷.

footnotes: ¹³ It is stated in Mishnah 4:9 that if a vineyard consists of two rows distant 16 cubits, then it is not legally a vineyard and a field may be sown in between, 14 cubits wide for the entire length of the rows of vines. In the opinion of Cahana, that Mishnah belongs only to the House of Hillel, and by analogy we infer that the House of Shammai require 24 cubits between the two rows to permit sowing in between. In the opinion of R. Joḥanan, Mishnah 4:9 is generally accepted, even by the House of Shammai. ¹⁴ This third is taken from the top, one third of 24, which is one half of 16. ¹⁵ This belongs to the statement of R. Joḥanan that in all these measurements, the measure of the House of Shammai relates to that of the House of Hillel as 3 to 2. ¹⁶ This baraita ¹⁷ And again, 12÷8 = 3÷2. However, there is an inconsistency here because the same argument applied to the bald spot in a vineyard would lead to 20÷12 = 5÷3.

But for tending a vineyard¹⁸, according to the House of Shammai 8 cubits, according to the House of Hillel 6¹⁹ cubits. But did we not state²⁰ in a vineyard, the House of Shammai say that he sanctified one row, but the House of Hillel say he sanctified two rows.” Since the verse declares that sowing (grains or vegetables) in a vineyard sanctifies “the vineyard”, the sown plants sanctify the nearest vineyard; for the House of Hillel this involves two rows. In any case, the House of Shammai is also mentioned in the Mishnah that puts the minimal distance of seeds from vines at slightly greater than 4 cubits.: “Therefore, he who sows four cubits in a vineyard, the House of Shammai say that he sanctified one row, but the House of Hillel say that he sanctified two rows.” Let us say that it²¹ was stated because of the House of Hillel. But did we not state²²: “What is a trellis? He who plants a row of five vines.” There is a difference, since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this was taught about a curved trellis. By its curving, two are absorbed²³.

footnotes: ¹⁸ This discussion is independent of the previous paragraph, since an inconsistency was shown in the position of R. Joḥanan. Since the Mishnah does not define how much space is needed for tending a vineyard, this has to be established here. ¹⁹ This is the mss. text, but it is unacceptable since the following discussion clearly indicates that the reading is “4”. The entire sentence is questionable since the contraction of על דעתיה to אדעתיה is Babylonian Aramaic. ²⁰ Mishnah 4:5: “If somebody plants five vines in a row, the House of Shammai say it is a vineyard, the House of Hillel say that there is no vineyard unless there are two rows. Therefore, he who sows four cubits ²¹ “4 cubits.” ²² Mishnah 6:1: “What is a trellis? If one plants a row of five vines near a fence 10 hand-breadths high or next to a ditch 10 hand-breadths deep and four wide, one gives it four cubits for tending. The House of Shammai say, one measures four cubits from the stem of the vines into the field, but the house of Hillel say, from the fence towards the field.” The fact that the trellis makes a single row into a vineyard is needed only for the House of Hillel, since Mishnah 4:5 already had stated that five vines in a row are a vineyard for the House of Shammai. ²³ Hence, for the House of Shammai the five vines would not form a vineyard were it not for the trellis; no conclusion can be drawn for the position of the House of Shammai on the measure of space for tending of a vineyard planted in a straight line.

Not only a fence, but even if he puts up laths²⁵ 2:1., if between one lath and the next there is less that three hand-breadths it is considered a fence²⁶ 7a, Šabbat 97a) considers openings of less than three hand-breadths as legally nonexisting. This theory is not found in the Yerushalmi.. Even standing grain and straw²⁷? Or does it agree with what Rebbi Ḥanina said: Nothing forbidden may form a separation to save²⁸? They are of the opinion that what is forbidden does form a separation to forbid.

footnotes: ²⁵ The minimal width of a lath (as distinct from a pole) is given in Mishnah Eruvin ²⁶ Mishnah 4 explains that an opening less than three hand-breadths wide is still an effective barrier for goats. The Babli (e. g., Sukkah ²⁷ Does a field on which the plants are higher than 10 hand-breadths act as a fence? ²⁸ It is forbidden to sow grain in a vineyard, because this “sanctifies” the vineyard. Hence, grain of any kind cannot form a fence. One might think that, therefore, a vineyard surrounded by grain fields has no fence, and one may sow grain four cubits away from the vines. The rabbis infer from the statement of R. Ḥanina that standing grain ten hand-breadths high acts as a fence to forbid, i. e., the domain between vineyard and grain has the status of a bald spot around the vineyard and one needs 12 cubits minimum space to sow there.

In the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah, it³² is as in the interior of a vineyard. Then 16 should be forbidden! Rebbi Jonah said, it means that the trunks³³) is a big basket, also used as beehive. Levy compares כורת “trunk” to קורה “log.” But כָּרָתִי means leeks, not trunk. Hence, the vocalization כֹּרֶת is used here. are not aligned. But if the trunks are aligned, they forbid 16³⁴.

footnotes: ³² The status of the circumference of a vineyard. ³³ In this Chapter, “trunk” is always spelled כרת. In the next Chapter, the spelling is always כורת; in the parallel Tosephta it is כוורת in the Vienna ms., כורת in the Erfurt ms. The Vienna reading is to be rejected, since כוודת (Arabic kuwwara ³⁴ If the rows of the two vineyards are parallel, the space between them is a bald spot in one vineyard and 16 cubits are the minimum distance for sowing there. But if the two vineyards are planted so that the parallel rows of one vineyard are at a fixed non-zero angle to those of the other, then only 12 cubits of separation are needed.

Only if it is surrounded by a fence on all four sides³⁵? From what we have stated: “Between two vineyards,” that means even from one side only³⁶. Only if the fence encloses all of that side³⁷? Let us hear from the following that Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Yasa, said in the name of Rav Mattanah: There is no tail for a large vineyard and no circumference for a small vineyard³⁸. There is no tail for a large vineyard because one does not need it. Neither a circumference for a small vineyard to forbid more outside than inside; inside eight³⁹ and outside twelve. What is a small vineyard? Three parallel three⁴⁰. Hence, three parallel three parallel three, [the vineyard] has a circumference⁴¹. Rebbi Zeïra said, that means that if he made laths along three vines then [the vineyard] has a circumference⁴².

footnotes: ³⁵ Since מחול implies turning around in a full circle, does the rule of “circumference” apply only to a vineyard that is totally fenced in? ³⁶ Otherwise, R. Jehudah would have to say “five vineyards,” one in the middle and four around it. ³⁷ Since we have established that the rule of מחול applies even if there is a fence only along one side, does this fence have to be extended for the entire length of the vineyard? ³⁸ A minimal vineyard is defined by the House of Hillel in Mishnah 4:6 as five vines, four of which form a rectangle and the fifth is on the prolongation of one of the edges of the rectangle. This fifth vine is the “tail” of that vineyard. Once all rows contain at least three vines, the “tail” no longer has any function. A minimal vineyard which loses some vines is no longer a vineyard; it cannot have a “circumference”. ³⁹ In all cases, one may sow at a distance of 4 cubits from any vine. Hence, if two parallel rows in a vineyard are farther apart than 8 cubits, one may sow in the middle, unless he is in the situation of a bald spot or a circumference of a vineyard. ⁴⁰ “Small” means one vine more than the minimal number. ⁴¹ Nine vines grown in three straight rows form a large vineyard. ⁴² Now one may answer the question asked at the start: Since three rows of three vines each form a large vineyard, if one makes a fence on one side of such a subvineyard of a larger vineyard the rules of circumference apply and he may not sow unless there is a distance of 12 cubits from the last vine to the fence. If the laths accompany only two vines one may sow at a distance of four cubits.

Rebbi Judan asked: What if he made a fence inside a fence? He said⁴³, if there are three hand-breadths one may sow there, otherwise one may not sow there. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: If there was a place of twelve cubits there, the circumference would be eliminated⁴⁴. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, only if it is twelve by twelve. Rebbi Mana said, even if it continuously narrows⁴⁵.

footnotes: ⁴³ He answered his own question. If the outer fence, the one outside of which one sows other kinds, is 12 cubits away from any vine one may sow at a distance of 4 cubits from the vines. ⁴⁴ That is, the requirement of “circumference” is satisfied and one may sow at a distance of 4 from the vines even where the distance to the fence is less that 12 cubits. The reading of the Rome ms. is בטל “disregarded” instead of ניטל. ⁴⁵ It is not clear whether R. Mana disagrees with R. Ḥizqiah and accepts that one may sow in a circumference at a distance of 4 cubits if at one spot at least the distance to the fence was 12 cubits, or if he adds to R. Ḥizqiah’s statement that beyond a length of 12 cubits the strip forming the circumference may get narrower. Maimonides does not quote either of these opinions in his Code.

MISHNAH: If there are less than three hand-breadths of distance between the sticks of a partition fence made from sticks, so that a kid goat cannot enter, then that is a valid partition wall⁴⁶. Also, if a wall was torn down up to a length of ten cubits, that acts as a gate. If more than that, it is forbidden along the torn-down part⁴⁷. If it is torn down in many places, if what is standing is more than what is torn down, it is permitted, but if the torn-down part is more than the standing one, it is forbidden at the torn-down places.

footnotes: ⁴⁶ In this case, one may plant the vineyard up to the partition fence and on the other side one may sow his field up to the partition fence. One speaks here of a partition fence rather than a stone wall because one does not plant vines too close to a stone wall since the roots of the vines would damage the foundations of such a wall. ⁴⁷ At such a place, the outside field must be separated from the vines by a minimum of four cubits. The same rule applies to the situation described in the next sentence. [The same rules apply for carrying on the Sabbath; a fenced-in domain is private only if a) the torn-down parts do not exceed 10 cubits at any one place and b) the sum of the lengths of the standing walls overall must be more than the sum of the lengths of the breaches in the wall.]

HALAKHAH: Ten laths at the in-betweens⁴⁸., a wall with many breaches. If a standing segment of wall is less than four hand-breadths long, it is not regarded as a partner with the two other standing pieces to its left and right. The laths one discusses here are not put into the torn-down parts but close to them, either before the front or behind the back part of the wall; therefore, they cannot be considered parts of the wall. Hence, one may plant vines up to the wall and sow produce on the other side only where an actual wall provides the separation; everywhere else the minimal distance must be 4 cubits. and what is standing is four hand-breadths wide, and what is standing is more than what is torn down: where it is standing it is permitted, where it is torn down it is forbidden. If one made laths in front of the vines⁴⁹, and what is standing is less than four hand-breadths, and what is torn down is more than what is standing, it is obvious⁵⁰ 1:9, fol. 19c) and for making a Sukkah (Sukkah 1:1, fol. 52a) a piece of wall is disregarded if it is not at least four hand-breadths wide. The statement then also contradicts the assertion of the next paragraph, that the rules of kilaim and Sabbath are identical. One has to assume that, originally, instead of ואין one read ויש. that where it is standing it is permitted, where it is torn down it is forbidden.

footnotes: ⁴⁸ Here one speaks of the situation described at the end of the Mishnah, viz ⁴⁹ This shields the vines from being seen through the holes in the wall but the laths are separated from the wall. ⁵⁰ It is obvious that one is forbidden to sow near the open spaces but it is not obvious at all that one is permitted to sow near the standing wall since both for the Sabbath (Eruvin

⁵³1:9 (fol. 19c), Sukkah 1:1 (fol. 52a). Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Judah ben Ḥaninah⁵⁴: If one put in four poles at the four corners of a vineyard and connected them with a bast string on top⁵⁵ 11a/b), the expression is זמורה, “shoot of a vine.” The “string” used here may be a natural product; it does not have to be manufactured., this saves as a symbolic fence⁵⁶. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the rules of separation walls for the Sabbath are the rules for kilaim⁵⁷, Chapters 1 and 2. In Babli Eruvin11a/b, the statement of R. Simeon ben Laqish in the name of R. Judah ben Ḥaninah explicitly excludes the expedient of the bast rope for the Sabbath, but R. Joḥanan excludes it also for kilaim. R. Simeon ben Laqish is reported there to accept for himself the statement attributed here to R. Joḥanan, that the rules for Sabbath and kilaim are identical, whereas R. Joḥanan rejects this in general. The position of the Babli is that R. Simeon ben Laqish only reports the opinion of R. Judah ben Ḥaninah without accepting it himself, and that R. Joḥanan prohibits the use of a rope for openings wider than 10 cubits. The Yerushalmi accepts R. Simeon ben Laqish’s statement as describing his own position.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it happened that Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥah went to Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri at Nagnigar⁵⁸, that both for Sabbath and kilaim an opening may not be wider than 10 cubits, in the opinion of R. Joḥanan even with פיאה.; he showed him a field called bet ḥaverata whose wall had parts torn down more than ten⁵⁹ wide. He took wood to insert, forked poles⁶⁰; its use in vineyards is described by Varro I.8. This explanation from Musaphia is accepted by most Semitic linguists. [Symmachus uses δίκρανα to translate כילפות “hatchets” (Ps. 74:6).] H. L. Fleischer derives the word from Semitic דק‏ר “to pierce”. Arabic دُقْرَان “trellis made for vines” might be an Aramaic loanword (S. Fränkel) or have a common root دقر “to bolt a door with a piece of wood” with دِقْر “bolt, lock”, دَوْقَرَة “arid plain between mountains”, دَقْر “prosperous garden”. to insert, until he reduced to less than ten. He said, just like that is a dividing wall for the Sabbath. Rebbi Zeïra said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that on the Sabbath, a symbolic fence does not save more than ten⁶¹. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, the Mishnah says so: “One surrounds it with three ropes, one above the other⁶² 1:9: If a caravan camps in the desert during the Sabbath, in order to create a space where one is permitted to carry, one puts bags at the corners of the domain and connects them with three parallel rows of ropes so that no two ropes are more than 3 hand-breadths distant from each other. If the diameters of the three ropes add another hand-breadth, the upper rim of this symbolic wall is 10 hand-breadths above ground, one has created a valid separation, and the enclosed space is a private domain. (This speaks against Maimonides’s interpretation of Mishnah 3 in this Chapter.) For kilaim, a wall made in this way by three ropes strung one above the other is accepted in Tosephta Kilaim 4:3..” If you say that the string saves, one rope would be sufficient⁶³.

footnotes: ⁵³ This paragraph and the following ones are found also in Eruvin ⁵⁴ A Galilean Amora of the first generation. ⁵⁵ The rope of bast connects one pole to the other, all around the vineyard. In the Babli (Eruvin ⁵⁶ Cf. Chapter 1, Note 159. ⁵⁷ The rules for Sabbath, the definition of walls that enclose a domain to make it private, are discussed in detail in tractate Eruvin ⁵⁸ A place in lower Galilee; the name is spelled נגנגד, נגינר and, in the Babli, נגנינר. The report in the Babli is quite different, but the essence is the same, viz. ⁵⁹ Ten cubits, making the wall invalid as separation. ⁶⁰ Greek δίκρανον “pitchfork”. The “woods” were planks put on the ground and connected to the wall; the poles were stuck into the ground. They were forked so that on each side a rope could be attached forming פיאה to the next pole. Cf. Latin furcilla ⁶¹ A string strung from one pole to the next creates the impression of a gate and a gate cannot be wider than 10 cubits. ⁶² Mishnah Eruvin ⁶³ The caravan clearly wants more space for animals and people than 10 by 10 cubits; if they park some camel loads at the four corners of their camp, they need a surrounding wall, not a surrounding gate. If it is possible to symbolize a wall with one rope, why does one need three?

Rebbi Jonah said: Rebbi Hoshaia asked, what do you say about that symbolic fence, on top or at the sides⁶⁶? If you say on top, so much more on the sides⁶⁷, a wall is more of a separation than a gate.. If you say on the sides, then not on the top. If you say on the top, Rebbi Ḥaggai said it correctly⁶⁸ does not require the lowest rope to be within three hand-breadths of the ground, it is clear that even if the rows are strung high one needs three ropes and not just one.. If you say from the sides, Rebbi Ḥaggai did not say anything⁶⁹. What do you want to say⁷⁰, if on top, it must be on top. Or from the sides, it is on the sides. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: Explain it if they were strung on forked poles⁷¹ 11b, rejecting symbolic walls but accepting symbolic gates..

footnotes: ⁶⁶ If four poles are put up at the four sides of the vineyard, does the string have to go from top to top, to create the impression of a gate, or is it strung at half height between the poles, to give the impression of a wall? ⁶⁷ At least for kilaim ⁶⁸ Since the Mishnah in Eruvin ⁶⁹ If the rope must be low, the case of פיאה is different from that of the Mishnah. ⁷⁰ A technical term, indicating that the desired result can be obtained from both hypotheses. The inference here is that R. Ḥaggai is correct in both cases, since the Mishnah is formulated to apply to both of them. ⁷¹ If the poles have separate hooks so that each side has a complete arrangement of poles and rope, then even R. Zeïra will admit that the rope forms a valid enclosure for the Sabbath. In this case, by necessity the rope is on top only. In this, the Yerushalmi parallels the final explanation of the Babli, Eruvin

Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Eudaimon of Haifa, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: In height even one hundred cubits⁷². Rebbi Judan said, that is, for kilaim, but as regards the Sabbath, a symbolic fence should not be better than a beam⁷³ 1:1 declares that the beam cannot be higher than 20 cubits to be valid.. Rebbi Yose said, it is the same for kilaim and Sabbath. According to Rebbi Yose, what is the difference between a beam and a symbolic fence? A symbolic fence does not save from one side unless it is used to close all four sides; a beam saves in one direction. This may be compared to what Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rav Hamnuna: A symbolic fence does not save unless it seals all four sides⁷⁴.

footnotes: ⁷² If a rope is drawn from the top of one pole to the next, there are no height limitations (except, naturally, than it cannot be lower than 10 hand-breadths.) ⁷³ If the inhabitants of a dead-end street want to turn that dead-end street into a private domain in which one may carry on the Sabbath, they have to put in a visible border either in the form of a beam at the entrance of the dead-end street, going from the wall of one house to the wall of the opposite house, or they may put up a symbolic doorpost. Mishnah Eruvin ⁷⁴ The problem is not discussed in the Babli.

Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, it is forbidden to carry under the fourgated⁷⁵ [bowers] in vineyards since they form the end of the roof and the end of a roof cannot save as symbolic fence. Rebbi Phineas said, a case came before Rebbi Jeremiah of four pillars and on them four beams⁷⁶, the spelling is פצטליות with emphatic s.); he permitted to carry under them because of a symbolic fence.⁷⁷

footnotes: ⁷⁵ Greek τετράπυλον, τό, “archway entered from four sides.” Bowers erected at the crossing of two paths, with only the posts and the connecting beams built, and the roof formed by plants climbing on the poles. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal considers these beams as קורה under which one may not carry in a dead-end street. The vineyard in question is not enclosed by a wall, or it is enclosed but too large (larger than 5000 square cubits) to be considered a courtyard for the rules of Sabbath; hence, one may carry under the roof of the bower but not outside. ⁷⁶ Greek ἐπιστύλιον, τό “architrave.” (In Eruvin ⁷⁷ He disagrees with R. Abba bar Mamal.

Rebbi Abun and the rabbis asked before Rebbi Zeïra, does a symbolic fence save in a sukkah⁷⁸? He said to them, a symbolic fence saves in a sukkah. Does the end of the roofing save in a sukkah⁷⁹ must have some connection on which the roofing may rest. Can these connections be considered as peah, following R. Jeremiah in the preceding case?? He said to them, the end of the roofing does not save in a sukkah. What is the difference between them? One is made for the purpose, the other one is not made for the purpose. Rebbi Abbahu said, all these things⁸⁰ is a positive commandment but neglecting it is not punishable in court. But desecrating the Sabbath is a capital crime. are for discussion’s sake, but as far as teaching, it is forbidden to teach it. If this is forbidden for the minor commandment of sukkah, so much more for the strict commandment of Sabbath!

footnotes: ⁷⁸ The hut one must build to live in on the festival of Tabernacles. The main requirement for such a hut is that the roofing must be plant material. The walls can be made of any material. The question is whether a virtual wall is permitted. (The Babli does not consider this problem but states that two full walls and part of a third must be actual walls.) ⁷⁹ Since the roofing must have some support, the four corner posts of the sukkah ⁸⁰ The rulings of R. Zeïra. Building a sukkah

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeïra: Is not the Tanna, according to whom a symbolic fence saves, Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri? He said to him, that is the Tanna⁸¹.

footnotes: ⁸¹ Hence, in regard to the Sabbath this is the opinion of a minority of one, which cannot be operational practice.

“⁸²1:8, fol. 19b/c. The baraita is similar to Tosephta Kilaim 4:6 quoted also in Babli Eruvin 16a. The main difference between Yerushalmi and Babli-Tosephta is that in the latter source, each breach has to be smaller than the surrounding wall whereas in the Yerushalmi only the total length of standing wall has to be larger than the total length of the missing parts. It turns out that concerning kilaim everything less than three hand-breadths is considered closed⁸³. From three to four, if what is standing is more than what is torn down it is permitted, but if what is torn down is more than what is standing, it is forbidden. From four hand-breadths⁸⁴ to ten cubits, if what is standing is more than what is torn down, it is permitted; but if what is torn down is more than what is standing it is permitted where it is standing⁸⁵, forbidden where it is torn down. Concerning the Sabbath, everything less than three hand-breadths is considered closed. From three to four, and from four hand-breadths to ten cubits, it is permitted if what is standing is more than what is torn down, but forbidden if what is torn down is more than what is standing. More than ten, it is forbidden even though what is standing is more than what is torn down.” Rebbi Ḥananiah, Rebbi Judah bar Pazi, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There is no “from three to four.⁸⁶, the one dealing with breaches of between three and four hand-breadths, in case that the standing walls also are in pieces less than four hand-breadths wide. While a hole wider than three hand-breadths is considered a breach, a wall narrower than four hand-breadths is not a wall. In that case, there are only holes and no wall at all; the entire wall should be considered as non-existent! He requires in this case that any sown field should be at least four cubits distant from the vineyard.” There is a hole of three and no place of four! Rebbi Mana objected: Did we not state: “One surrounds with reeds,” does a reed form a place⁸⁷ 1:9. Since the reeds are counted and no reed is even one hand-breadth wide, any piece of wall should be considered a wall. The answer is that as long as no two reeds are three hand-breadths distant from each other, the entire dividing fence is considered a solid wall.? He said to him, do not object to me from a breach less than three hand-breadths, since anything less than three is considered closed! Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: In any case, since what is standing is more than what is torn down, it is permitted⁸⁸.

footnotes: ⁸² This paragraph is also in Eruvin ⁸³ An opening of less than three hand-breadths in a wall is disregarded. ⁸⁴ The context and all corroborating evidence show that instead of ארבע (fem.) one has to read ארבעה (masc.), referring to hand-breadths, not cubits. In computing the total length of the torn-down parts, breaches smaller than three hand-breadths in width are disregarded. ⁸⁵ The Babli notes that not only are breaches up to three hand-breadths long disregarded as holes, but also standing pieces of wall up to three hand-breadths wide are disregarded as walls. This is the background of the discussion later in this paragraph. ⁸⁶ R. Joḥanan wants to eliminate the middle part of the baraita ⁸⁷ Mishnah Eruvin ⁸⁸ This explicitly rejects the text of Babli/Tosephta, that no single hole may be wider than both adjacent pieces of standing wall; the wall is valid as long as the combined length of standing wall (of at least 4 hand-breadths length) is larger than the combined length of the breaches.

MISHNAH: If somebody plants one row of five vines, the House of Shammai say that this is a vineyard⁸⁹ is forbidden to be sown near a vine, only for a vineyard both vines and seeds become sanctified and forbidden for any use; for single vines the usufruct is not forbidden.. But the House of Hillel say, [a planting] is not a vineyard unless it has two rows⁹⁰. Therefore, if somebody sows within four cubits of a vineyard, the House of Shammai say that he sanctifies one row, but the House of Hillel say, two rows⁹¹.

footnotes: ⁸⁹ Less than 5 vines are single vines and one has to leave only 6 hand-breadths of free space around them. But a vineyard needs 4 free cubits on all four sides. In addition, while kilaim ⁹⁰ It will be clear from Mishnah 6 that the House of Hillel also put the minimal number of vines in a vineyard at 5 but require them to be planted in two rows. ⁹¹ The extent of what becomes forbidden to use is detailed in the Halakhah.

HALAKHAH: That is, if sown in the middle⁹³. If he sowed in front of a middle vine, in the opinion of the House of Shammai he makes the entire row forbidden⁹⁴. In the opinion of the House of Hillel, he forbids three parallel three⁹⁵ was sown, and one vine on each side are sanctified. In the second row, the vine behind the middle one in the first row certainly is forbidden, as well as one vine adjacent to it. But since there is no way of deciding between left and right in this case, both are forbidden.. If he sowed in front of an interval in the middle, in the opinion of the House of Shammai, he forbids two on each side. What is said about the fifth? If the seeds were close to one vine, those are forbidden; if not, they are permitted⁹⁶. In the opinion of the House of Hillel, four parallel two are forbidden⁹⁷. If he sowed opposite the corner, which row is forbidden in the opinion of the House of Shammai? Both of them⁹⁸! In the opinion of the House of Hillel, two parallel two and one forming a tail on each side are forbidden⁹⁹. If one sowed in an interval at the corner¹⁰⁰, in the opinion of the House of Shammai he makes the entire row forbidden. In the opinion of the House of Hillel, two parallel two and one forming a tail are forbidden. What is the sixth? The third in the first row, the second in the third row.

footnotes: ⁹³ This explains what is forbidden if somebody sowed too close to a vineyard. The situation is simple unless one sows at a corner of the vineyard. In the entire discussion, the seeds are sown outside the vineyard but less than 4 cubits distant from the next vine. ⁹⁴ Not the entire row in a large vineyard, but the nearest row that forms a vineyard, which is 5 vines in one row. In this case, the vine in front of which the seed was sown becomes sanctified and with it two vines on each side in the front row. ⁹⁵ The House of Hillel define a minimal vineyard as five vines planted in two rows. So in the first row, the vine in front of which the kilaim ⁹⁶ If the seed in the middle were a mathematical point, we would have a problem. But in reality, if the perimeter of the growing plant is closer to one adjacent vine than to the other, the fifth is added at the closer side. If the growing plant is right in the middle, six vines become forbidden, three on each side. ⁹⁷ In the next Mishnah, the House of Hillel state that a minimal vineyard consists of five vines in two rows, forming a rectangle and a “tail.” In the interpretation of Maimonides, based on Gaonic sources, the “tail” is formed by a fifth vine forming an isosceles triangle with two of the other vines, together giving the vertices of a pentagon. In the interpretation of R. Simson, the minimal vineyard consists of two rows, three vines in one and two in the other, where two vines in each row are the vertices of a rectangle. According to Maimonides, both in his Commentary and his Code, the configuration of R. Simson is explicitly excluded in the next Mishnah. However, the Halakhah here seems to support R. Simson; I fail to see how the rest of the Halakhah can be interpreted by Maimonides. According to R. Simson, three vines in the first row and two in the second become sanctified; since we cannot intrinsically distinguish here between left and right, we have to choose four vines in the first row in the case where according to the House of Shammai one would have to choose six. ⁹⁸ Since the seed is supposed to be exactly on the extension of the diagonal pointing to the corner, both edges coming together at the corner are equal candidates, and one has the corner vine and four others on each edge, for a total of nine that become sanctified. ⁹⁹ The vines that become sanctified are the corner vine, two adjacent ones on each of the edges, and the vine next to the corner one on the diagonal. Then in any way one looks at the configuration, one has three vines in the first and two in the second rows, and four vines form a rectangle (“two parallel two.”) The total number of forbidden vines is six. (It has to be noted that, since the vines in a vineyard are planted in orderly rows, a “tail” in the sense of Maimonides is impossible here, but not a “tail” in the sense of R. Simson.) ¹⁰⁰ He sows between the corner vine and one of the adjacent vines. According to the House of Shammai there is no problem; he sanctifies the first five vines defined by the corner and the adjacent vine. According to the House of Hillel there is a problem, whether to take three vines in that row and two in the next, or to consider the seed to be placed between two rows, in which case we have to take three vines in the other edge starting from the corner, and the first two vines in the next row parallel to that edge, for a total of six vines. Another possible configuration, chosen in the next sentence, is to take three vines in the row in front of which the seed is sown, and perpendicular to it one vine in the outer and two in the next row perpendicular to it. Again, four vines form the rectangle at the corner and the other vines form minimal vineyards both in the direction of the edge in front of which was sown, and perpendicular to it.

MISHNAH: If somebody plants two parallel two and one which protrudes as tail¹⁰¹, that is a vineyard. Two parallel two and one between them¹⁰², or two parallel two and one in the middle¹⁰³, are not a vineyard, but two parallel two and one which protrudes as tail are.

footnotes: ¹⁰¹ As explained in the preceding Halakhah, four vines are planted in a rectangle and the fifth is in a straight line with two of these, on the extension of one of the edges of the rectangle, following the interpretation of R. Simson. ¹⁰² Four vines forming a rectangle with the fifth at the center of the rectangle. ¹⁰³ The fifth is at the midpoint of one of the sides of the rectangle. Maimonides switches the interpretations of the last two cases.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph: (Num. 34:2) “The land of Canaan according to its domains.” Domains that the Canaanites invented¹⁰⁴. Rebbi Immi asked, does one learn from the Canaanites¹⁰⁵85a.?

footnotes: ¹⁰⁴ The queer shape of a vineyard, consisting of 3 + 2 vines, does not originate from abstract reasoning but is a definition inherited from the Canaanites. The inference is drawn from the verse using the rare feminine form גבולה “domain” instead of the usual masculine גבול “border”, even though the description is not of the land but of its borders. ¹⁰⁵ There are many verses in the Pentateuch warning the Jewish people not to learn from the Canaanites. The derivation is alluded to in Babli Šabbat

Samuel said, one measures along the oblique line¹⁰⁶. Rebbi Yose bar Zemina in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: You consider it as if one were planted there¹⁰⁷.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁶ Greek λοξός, -ή, -όν “slanting, crosswise, oblique.” ¹⁰⁷ Since we have a vineyard, one may not plant within four cubits of it. According to Samuel, the form of the vineyard is that of a trapezoid with two right angles, and one may not sow in a larger trapezoid. According to R. Joḥanan, the shape of the vineyard is that of the smallest rectangle containing the trapezoid formed by the vines; i. e., one imagines that a vine be planted in the second row parallel to the fifth vine forming the tail. Then the forbidden domain is that of a larger rectangle.

Rebbi Jonah asked: If somebody planted two parallel two and one which protrudes as tail, and another two parallel two and one which protrudes as tail, you consider it as if an additional one was planted here and another one there¹⁰⁸. If one planted three parallel three and one added on the middle line, do you consider that an additional one was planted on either side to make it a large vineyard¹⁰⁹? Did we not say that a large vineyard has no tail¹¹⁰? That is if it is large; the question is to admit the tail for a small one to make it large!

footnotes: ¹⁰⁸ We have two rows, the first one with 6 vines, the second one with 4 (places 3 and 6 empty.) Then, according to R. Joḥanan, the entire vineyard is considered as if there were 6 and 6 vines. ¹⁰⁹ Here there are three rows; the first two have vines in places 1, 2, 3, but the third has only one in place 2. If the first number indicates the row, the second the place in the row, the vines are labelled (1,1), (1,2), (1,3), (2,1), (2,2), (2,3), (3,2). In the first two rows, there are four corner vines. If one of them is not counted, there are four minimal vineyards that can be chosen from the first two rows. In addition, there are two minimal vineyards involving row three, either {(1,1), (2,1), (1,2), (2,2), (3,2)} or {(1,3), (2,3), (1,2), (2,2), (3,2)}. If we add the two virtual vines (3,1), (3,3) in row three, we have three rows of three vines, and that is a large vineyard to which the rules of bald spot and surroundings apply, rather than the 4-cubit rule; see Halakhah 4:3, 5:1. ¹¹⁰ If there are at least three rows with three vines each, the tail is not needed; it has no influence on the rules. In this opinion, the question does not even arise and one does not add the theoretical vines. The answer is that the statement applies only to a vineyard that was planted as a large vineyard, not to our question here. The final answer is given only in Halakhah 5:1.

MISHNAH: If somebody plants one row on his own property and another row is on his neighbor’s property¹¹², and a private or a public road¹¹³ Chapter 2, Note 4. or a fence lower than ten hand-breadths are between them, they are counted together; if it is higher than ten hand-breadths, they are not counted together. Rebbi Jehudah says, if he lined them up on a common trellis, they are counted together¹¹⁴ 2:3, even the rest of the Sages agree that a wall does not separate for peah if the crowns of the trees are intermeshed over the wall. However, peah is determined by the crowns of the trees which are the places of the fruits, but kilaim by the stems that control the growth of the trees. This is the interpretation of all old commentators except Maimonides who translates “if he intermeshed them on top”; cf. Chapter Six, Note 1..

footnotes: ¹¹² The two rows have two different owners but if they are less than eight cubits apart and not separated by a wall at least ten hand-breadths high, they look like one vineyard and are treated as such. No sowing is permitted within four cubits of any vine. ¹¹³ A public access path less than 8 cubits wide; cf. Peah ¹¹⁴ Even over the wall. In Peah

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Aḥai said, does this not disagree with Rebbi Simeon, for Rebbi Simeon said, nobody can sanctify property that is not his own¹¹⁵? There, he said that nobody can sanctify property that is not his own, but here, his and his neighbor’s property are counted together to forbid the ground in the middle¹¹⁶. Rebbi Mana did not say so, but did not Rebbi Samuel say in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: Rebbi Simeon follows his own opinion; just as Rebbi Simeon said that nobody can sanctify property that is not his own, so he said that nobody can jail property that is not his own¹¹⁷, but here, his and his neighbor’s property are counted together to forbid the ground in the middle.

footnotes: ¹¹⁵ R. Simeon’s statement is in Mishnah 7:4: “Somebody who draws his vine over another person’s grain sanctifies the latter and has to pay for it. R. Simeon and R. Yose say, nobody can sanctify property that is not his own.” Cf. also Halakhah 2:7. ¹¹⁶ Since both rows were planted legally, they together forbid anything to be sown between them. ¹¹⁷ I. e., make it forbidden to be used. The original meaning of “jailing” is given in Halakhah 2:7; here it is taken in a wider sense. The implication is that if somebody planted vines illegally, encroaching on his neighbor’s estate, the neighbor could sow as much as he wanted on his side of the ground between the vines and his border.

MISHNAH: If somebody plants two rows, he should not sow there unless there are eight cubits between them¹¹⁸. If there were three rows, he should not sow there unless there are sixteen cubits between one row and the next¹¹⁹. Rebbi Eliezer¹²⁰ said in the name of Ḥananiah ben Ḥakhinai¹²¹: He should not sow there unless there are sixteen cubits between one row and the next, even if the middle row dried up. But if he planted new [vines]¹²², it would be permitted with eight cubits. If somebody plants his vineyard sixteen by sixteen cubits, he may bring seeds there¹³². Rebbi Jehudah said, it happened that somebody in Ṣalmon¹³³ planted his vineyard sixteen by sixteen cubits. He turned the growth of two rows towards one another and sowed the ploughed area¹³⁴. The next year, he turned the growth to the side that had been sown and sowed what was fallow. This came before the Sages and they permitted it. Rebbi Simeon and Rebbi Meïr say that this is permitted even for someone who plants his vineyard spaced eight cubits¹³⁵.

footnotes: ¹¹⁸ Rows of vines less than 8 cubits apart are considered vineyard-forming, and one has to separate seeds from vines by a minimum of four cubits. Hence, between two rows one may not sow unless there is a distance of more than 8 cubits. ¹¹⁹ The opinion of the anonymous Sages is that a large vineyard (at least three rows of three vines each) needs 8 cubits distance from each row; see Halakhah 4:1. ¹²⁰ This should be R. Eliezer ben Jacob II, one of the last students of R. Aqiba. His name is spelled out in full in most Mishnah mss. and in the Rome ms. R. Eliezer (ben Hyrcanus) was a teacher of Rebbi Aqiba. ¹²¹ In most sources, he is given the title Rebbi. He was among the early students of R. Aqiba, almost one generation older than R. Eliezer ben Jacob II. ¹²² Then there would be only two rows and the vineyard never would be “large.” ¹³² If between any two vines there is a 16 cubits space, the vines are isolated and one may sow everywhere except in the six hand-breadths close to any vine. ¹³³ An unidentified place in the Land of Israel. ¹³⁴ He worked in a two-year cycle, one year planting and one year letting lie fallow. Each of his rows bordered one strip that was sown and one that lay fallow. He did not want even the leaves of his vines to grow over the grains or vegetables he planted, so each year after trimming he trained them to grow over the fallow field. ¹³⁵ Vines spaced eight cubits or more apart (according to R. Meïr, 40 hand-breadths) are not vineyard-forming.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Zeïra said, eight except for the space of the trunks¹²³. Just as you say, eight except for the space of the trunks, so also four except for the space of the trunks¹²⁴.

footnotes: ¹²³ If one has 16 cubits distance between two rows in a vineyard, it still is not enough since one needs 8 cubits of fallow land on each side, not counting the vines. This discussion is referred to in Halakhah 5:5. ¹²⁴ If there are only two rows and one may sow with eight cubits distance, one still has to have four cubits of empty space on each side, not counting the space of the vines.

Rebbi Eleazar said, they were more restrictive inside than outside¹²⁵. Rebbi Zeïra said, when I was still there¹²⁶, I explained it that inside eight [are required], outside sixteen: From four cubits to eight, it is forbidden and sanctifies, from eight to sixteen it is forbidden but does not sanctify.

footnotes: ¹²⁵ Except for the case of a distant wall (“the circumference of the vineyard”), outside one never has to be farther away than four cubits. ¹²⁶ In Babylonia. He explains the statement of R. Eleazar, not that “outside” means outside of the vineyard (where in the most restrictive case one only needs 12 cubits) but “inside” is the empty ground that is only eight cubits wide, where any sowing will sanctify both crop and vines, so that no use whatsoever will be permitted, but for a strip wider than 8 and less than 16, when there is no vineyard but only single rows and, hence, the planting does not create an “inside” of any vineyard, anything sown at a distance greater than 6 hand-breadths from any vine is still forbidden but it will not become impossible to use it.

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It turns out that the statement of Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob¹²⁷ is like that of the House of Shammai. Just as the House of Shammai say that one row constitutes a vineyard, so Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says that one row constitutes a vineyard¹²⁸. What do you want to say? A large vineyard is forbidden by eight, a small vineyard is forbidden by eight¹²⁹! Rebbi Judan did not say so but taught that eight cubits is forbidden, eight cubits plus any length¹³⁰ 4:9) either as one hand-breadth, or ⁵/6 of a hand-breadth; see the discussion of the sources in Tosefta Ki-fšuṭah, p. 642. In the first opinion, that there is no difference between the widths admitted in large or small vineyards, any planting in which the vines are up to (but not including) eight cubits apart is a vineyard and protected by the laws of a vineyard. In the second opinion, exactly eight cubits still form a large vineyard (possibly not a small one), and only distances of more than eight turn the vines into single trees that have only six hand-breadths as protected area around them. is permitted. Some want to state: “But if someone newly planted sixteen by sixteen¹³¹, it would be permitted with eight cubits.” Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It turns out that the statement of Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob is like that of the House of Shammai. Just as the House of Shammai are more restrictive when it is dried up than when it is planted, so Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob is more restrictive when it is dried up than when it is planted.

footnotes: ¹²⁷ The one that in the Mishnah is attributed to “R. Eliezer.” ¹²⁸ The implication is that the opinion of R. Eliezer ben Jacob cannot possibly be the actual practice. ¹²⁹ Since plants sanctify a vineyard only up to a distance of four cubits, how does one ever come to forbid sixteen? ¹³⁰ The added width is defined in the Tosephta (Kilaim ¹³¹ This is an extraordinary restriction. It implies that R. Eliezer ben Jacob considers vines as vineyard-forming if between any two vines the distance is up to sixteen cubits, not, as supposed in our version of the Mishnah, that the distance between vines in a row is up to eight cubits, only that between rows it is sixteen cubits! The question now arises whether this is a legitimate interpretation of the position of the House of Shammai. R. Joḥanan answers that R. Eliezer ben Jacob may well agree that vines farther than eight cubits apart are not vineyard-forming, only he holds that once it was a vineyard, it does not lose its properties automatically when it dries up unless the vines are actually removed.

Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rav: The seed is permitted but one is forbidden to sow¹³⁵. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rav: The practice is that one is permitted to sow. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon. Does it mean that the seed is permitted and one is permitted to sow, or that the seed is permitted but one is forbidden to sow¹³⁶? Since Rebbi Abba said: Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi measured the layout of my vineyard eight by eight¹³⁷; that means that the seed is permitted and one is permitted to sow. Rav Huna sowed leeks in his vineyard¹³⁸. Is that not forbidden because of kilaim? They were mixed up¹³⁹ and a single vine needs no place to tend it, following the words of Rebbi Ismael; as Rebbi Ismael said, the words of the Sages are that a single vine needs no place to tend it. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice outside the Land follows the lenient opinion. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, there¹⁴⁰ they stated: Practice outside the Land follows the lenient opinion.

footnotes: ¹³⁵ Vines spaced eight cubits or more apart (according to R. Meïr, 40 hand-breadths) are not vineyard-forming. ¹³⁶ Since we have two conflicting statements, both in the name of Rav. ¹³⁷ He means that Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi, companion of Rav in the latter’s Academy, provided him with a layout for his vineyard so that he could sow grain between the vines. There is no more compelling evidence than the action of a respected authority. ¹³⁸ That vineyard must have been one in which not every vine was planted eight cubits from its nearest neighbor. ¹³⁹ The vines were planted, or spontaneously growing, in an irregular pattern and nowhere in the vineyard was it possible to identify even a minimal vineyard (3 + 2 vines, 4 forming a rectangle) as required by the House of Hillel. Mishnah 5:1 shows that in such a case, there is an opinion that the planting represents a collection of vines, not a vineyard, and that each vine needs only 6 hand-breadths of empty space around it. Since Rav Huna lived in Babylonia, he had the right to follow the lenient ruling. ¹⁴⁰ In Babylonia. The “Land” everywhere is the Land of Israel.