MISHNAH: What is a trellis¹ 2:4 explains that five vines in a row form a vineyard for the House of Hillel only if the vines are growing on a trellis near a fence, not if the fence is used as a trellis. This is the only possible explanation in Idiut, but in his Commentary on this Mishnah, Maimonides explains that vines lean on or upon the (stone) fence. He gives the same interpretation in his Code (Kilaim 8:2) but then has to come to the conclusion (loc.cit. 8:3) that the four cubits to be measured from the fence are on the side pointing away from the vines. R. Abraham ben David protests against this interpretation which “never entered the mind of any commentator.” Maimonides’s interpretation is difficult to accept, the tortured justifications of R. David ben Zimra and R. Joseph Caro in their commentaries on the Code notwithstanding, since the vines according to the Mishnah can be up to three cubits distant from the fence.? If somebody plants a row of five vines along a fence ten hand-breadths high or a ditch ten hand-breadths deep and four wide, one gives it four cubits working space. The House of Shammai say one measures four cubits between the stems of the vines and the field. The House of Hillel say, between fence and field². Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, anybody who affirms this is in error; if there are four cubits between the stems of the vines and the fence one gives it its working space and he may sow the rest. What is the working space of a vine³? Six hand-breadths in every direction; Rabbi Aqiba says three.

footnotes: ¹ This is the interpretation of most commentaries, from Hebrew ערש “crib”, Arabic عَرِبش “trellis, crib”. R. Abraham ben David in his commentary to Idiut ² For them, the trellis (or plantation) is not quite a vineyard; it is irrelevant where in the strip near the fence the vines are planted. ³ A single vine. For R. Ismael, five vines in a row are never a vineyard; they are a collection of single vines; the restrictions of the Mishnah apply only because the trellis is too close to the fence. But as soon as the vines are a full four cubits distant from the fence, the vines are treated as isolated. For R. Aqiba, the working space must have a diameter of six hand-breadths.

HALAKHAH: It is difficult. Is it not forbidden anyhow for the House of Shammai as a vineyard⁴? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this was taught about a curved trellis⁵. In that case, it would not be forbidden as a vineyard without a fence. Rebbi Jonah inquired⁶, Wilna 1928. The question is addressed to the House of Hillel in the interpretation of R. Simeon ben Laqish. For them, two parts of the definition of a vineyard are missing; there is only one row and the vines are not planted in a straight line. The Mishnah declares a trellis in front of a fence to have a status similar to a vineyard but it is not clear whether the rules of a vineyard are valid without change. Since in Mishnah 7, the space required to separate two trellises is only half the space required to separate two vineyards, it is clear that the rules of vineyards cannot be applied without change to trellises. We have to assume that also along the trellis the vines are planted at least four cubits apart. Since the vines are planted in a zig-zag pattern, between two vines in the same row the distance is almost eight cubits. Rebbi Jonah now asks, according to R. Simeon ben Laqish does the forbidden area cover the union of circular disks of radius 4 centered at the vines or is the entire convex hull of that domain (the smallest convex set containing the disks) forbidden? In the first case, between the vines the minimal distance from the trellis is less than 4 cubits; this is “in between”. The answer is that only in the case of vines planted in a straight line can one say that the interior of the parallel figure to the trellis in distance 4 is forbidden; here it seems that not even the entire parallel figure to the zig-zag line connecting the vines is forbidden but only the union of the five circular disks. The second question then asks whether maybe not even the entire disks are forbidden but only the union of five polygons, each centered at a vine. Let v denote the center of a vine, a the point at distance 4 from v on the perpendicular from v to the fence, a’ the reflection of a in v. On both sides of the line a’va draw parallels in distance 1. They intersect the parallels to the zig-zag line through a and a’ at b,b’; c,c’. The polygon attached to v is then abb’a’c’ca. The forbidden area around a now is 8, not 16π 50, and even on the zig-zag line there is an interval of almost 2 cubits that might be sown. The answer is negative, with reference to Halakhah 3:7. FIGURE 6-1 HERE: May one sow in between? Is it in a straight line, that you say it is forbidden to sow in between? May one sow between the vines? As you say in the case of a row of gourds that it is forbidden to sow in between the pits, so here also it is forbidden to sow in between the vines.

footnotes: ⁴ Five vines in a row constitute a vineyard for the House of Shammai, Mishnah 4:5. ⁵ According to R. Simson, the trellis is in a straight line but the vines are planted alternatingly on both sides of the trellis; they are not in a straight line. According to R. Isaac Simponti, the trellis is built as arc of circle, to provide wider spacing for the branches of the vines exposed to the sun. ⁶ The interpretation of this paragraph and the next follows R. Iehiel Michel Halevi Epstein in his notes published as Mēkhal Hammayîm

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Mishnah was taught about a straight trellis. In that case, would it not be forbidden as a vineyard without a fence⁸? Let us say, it was stated because of the House of Hillel⁹. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, it is reasonable to assume that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees with Rebbi Joḥanan that it was taught about a straight trellis because of the House of Hillel, and Rebbi Joḥanan agrees with Rebbi Simeon [ben Laqish] that it was taught about a curved trellis because of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri, since Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said that anybody who affirms this is in error. If you say it was taught about a straight trellis, what can be in error¹⁰ 2:1).? What is the difference between him who says one measures from the roots of the vines and him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence? Rebbi Yose said, explain it if the stems were partially inside four cubits and partially outside of four cubits¹¹. For him who says one measures from the roots of the vine, all is in order. For him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence, where the string drawn from the fence ends it is forbidden, the rest is permitted. If there were two cubits¹².cit.), the House of Shammai will forbid only strips of two cubits each on both sides of the trellis but the House of Hillel will forbid an additional two cubits on the other side of the fence. According to R. Abraham ben David, the explanation of Maimonides defies all logic since a fence separates in all respects. R. Abraham explains that for the House of Shammai, a strip of width 2 is forbidden on each side of the vines. If the vines are d cubits wide, the total width of the forbidden strip is 4+d. But for the House of Hillel, the width is only 4, less than the width required by the House of Shammai., only two cubits are forbidden for him who says one measures from the roots of the vines, but for him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence, another two cubits are forbidden.

footnotes: ⁸ For the House of Shammai. ⁹ In the opinion of R. Joḥanan, the presence of a trellis has no legal consequences for the House of Shammai; else he would have stated that for the House of Hillel a straight row on a trellis, for the House of Shammai even a curved trellis, would form a vineyard. ¹⁰ This rhetorical question is difficult to accept, since for R. Joḥanan ben Nuri only one cubit around a vine has to be left empty, but for the House of Shammai four cubits along the trellis are required. The question seems to be that in a normal case, if the trellis is parallel to the fence at a distance of three cubits there is no difference since one may not sow between the trellis and the fence (R. Yose in Mishnah 5:4) and the next cubit away from the fence is forbidden according to both Houses and R. Joḥanan ben Nuri. If the fence is a stone fence belonging in part to a neighbor, three cubits distance is the legal minimum (Mishnah Baba Batra ¹¹ The trellis is straight but not parallel to the fence; at one end one cubit from the trellis is more than three cubits from the fence. If one measures from the vines, everything on this side of the fence is forbidden up to a distance of four cubits from the trellis; there is no difference between the House of Shammai and R. Joḥanan ben Nuri. But if one measures from the fence and the last vines are 4-ε cubits from the fence, then the House of Hillel forbid only a strip four cubits wide from the fence and R. Joḥanan ben Nuri will forbid up to 5- ε cubits from the fence. ¹² This is a different situation and refers to the disagreement between the Houses of Shammai and Hillel, but not to R. Joḥanan ben Nuri. Here the trellis is only two cubits from the fence; the fence must be the sole property of the vintner. According to Maimonides (loc

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri, all three said the same thing. Rebbi Ismael, as we have stated¹³: “About a small garden surrounded by a trellis, if there is room for the vintner and his basket on each side one may sow there, if not, it may not be sown.” Rebbi Jonah said, the vintner requires one cubit, his basket one cubit on each side. They wanted to say, for him who says one measures from the roots of the vine, all is in order. For him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence, do the stems not diminish the measure of four cubits¹⁴ the distance of the end of the forbidden domain from the fence will be 4+t 4 and R. Ismael cannot agree with R. Joḥanan ben Nuri that as soon as the distance is 4 there are only isolated vines.? Explain it if they were clinging to the wall. But are there not only four and the rules of the trellis start with five? Rebbi Ḥananiah said, explain it that two vines are planted at a corner; if one stretches a rope one sees four intervals¹⁵ two vines form a corner, for a total of four intervals.”. Rebbi Yose, as we have stated¹⁶: “If there are less than four cubits one should not bring seeds there.” For him who says one measures from the roots of the vine, all is in order. For him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence, does the stem not decrease the measure of four cubits? Explain it if it was clinging to the wall. And similarly Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri here. It is reasonable to assume that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Ismael will agree with Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri, but Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri will not agree with Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Ismael¹⁷. Rebbi Yose will agree with Rebbi Ismael but Rebbi Ismael will not agree with Rebbi Yose.

footnotes: ¹³ Mishnah Idiut 2:4, of the statements about accepted practices collected when Rabban Gamliel was deposed and R. Eleazar ben Azariah was installed as patriarch. The garden is a small plot, on each side a vine is planted and their branches are trained over a trellis. For a situation comparable to the one here one has to assume that plot and trellis are enclosed by a fence ten hand-breadths high. ¹⁴ If one measures two cubits from each side of the stem of thickness t ¹⁵ There are two possible interpretations of this statement. The traditional one is that there is a single vine on each side and an additional one planted at one corner for a total of six. But in that case, there are five intervals; in addition, the comparison between the opinions of R. Jose and R. Ismael would not work! R. Ḥananiah must insist that the rules of trellis do not depend on the number of vines but on the number of spaces between them. In a linear order, for four spaces one needs five vines. But in a circular arrangement, four vines define four intervals. I prefer to read the statement as: “Any ¹⁶ Mishnah 5:4. ¹⁷ R. Joḥanan ben Nuri might not agree that vines not planted in a straight line, even if strung on a trellis, ever need four cubits. But R. Yose and R. Ismael must agree that in the case of the Mishnah, the first four cubits are forbidden. R. Yose has to agree with R. Ismael since he requires four cubits even if the vines do not form a regular pattern, but we have no statement of R. Ismael if the stems of the vines do not form a square or at least a parallelogram.

Rebbi Jehudah¹⁸ 39a) disagrees and holds that kilaim is forbidden only in the Holy Land; elsewhere only sowing grain directly under a vine is forbidden by rabbinic decree since in the Holy Land this would sanctify. in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice outside the Land follows him who is lenient. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, there they stated: Practice outside the Land follows him who is lenient.

footnotes: ¹⁸ This must be Rav Jehudah. The following statement of R. Jacob bar Idi, taken from the end of Chapter 4, restricts the opinion of Rav to vineyards outside the Holy Land. The Babli (Qiddušin

MISHNAH: A trellis coming from a terrace. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, if someone standing on the ground can harvest all [vines] then it forbids four cubits in the field; otherwise it only forbids around it¹⁹. Rebbi Eliezer says²⁰, also if one plants one row on the ground and one on a terrace, if the latter is ten hand-breadth. higher they do not combine; otherwise, they do combine.

footnotes: ¹⁹ The rules of the trellis apply only if the harvest can be conducted in one plane; otherwise, the different parts planted on different levels are considered separate and its vines will have the status of isolated ones unless on each level there is a full trellis. ²⁰ In the opinion of R. David ben Zimra, the name should be deleted and the statement taken as anonymous Mishnah, since, in the discussion in the second paragraph of the Halakhah, the second statement is accepted as practice while the first one is rejected. A vineyard needs at least two rows; if the rows are ten hand-breadths apart in elevation no vineyard is formed.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman, Rebbi Jonathan, in the name of Rebbi Eliezer²², and the corresponding text in Babli Soṭah 43b. The traditions of the Babli are in the name of R. Joḥanan, not R. Jonathan, and are not identical with the statements here.: He who prunes his vineyard down to less than a hand-breadth subjects it to orlah because of the bad appearance²³ the first three years after planting (cf. Chapter 5, Note 93). The Sages apply orlah only if all growth above ground is cut off, and not as a matter of bad impressions. The Babli deals with a minimal vineyard of dwarf vines that never grow a hand-breadth tall and declares them to be permanent orlah.. The Sages say, only if he prunes down to the ground. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, in the name of Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob: He who forms a heap from gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah, is subject to the Great Heave²⁴ Chapter 1, Note 127). The Babli requires full tithing once a heap is formed on the field from exempt gifts to the poor (but the townspeople know the poor who have no land). because of the bad appearance. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob in the name of the House of Shammai: A corpse in the public domain induces impurity four cubits around it, to sustain its dignity²⁵. 19). The House of Shammai extend this impurity by rabbinic decree to anybody within four cubits of the corpse, so that only those occupied with the burial will come near the corpse.. Rebbi Mana said, this last statement is in the name of the House of Shammai; Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, all are in the name of the House of Shammai²⁶. Rebbi Jonah said, also that which we stated here²⁷ is because of the bad appearance. If it were not so, what would be the difference whether one stands on the ground or on the terrace?

footnotes: ²² This is R. Eliezer ben Jacob, as in the next statement, the parallel in Ševi‘it ²³ The person who sees vine stumps less than a hand-breadth high might think of them as new growth whose yield is forbidden as orlah ²⁴ This is the regular heave, called “great” in contrast to the heave of the tithe (cf. Peah ²⁵ A person standing over a corpse is forming a “tent” by his body and becomes impure (Num ²⁶ None of the statements in this paragraph are practice to be followed. ²⁷ The statement of R. Eliezer ben Jacob in the Mishnah. If vines growing on two different levels did form a vineyard or a trellis in any Biblical sense, the rabbis could not make the definition dependent on whether all grapes can be harvested from the lower level. The other statements of R. Eliezer ben Jacob in this paragraph were introduced as background for R. Jonah’s statement.

“Higher²⁸.” Is the row higher or is the terrace higher? If you say that the row is higher, the declivity of the terrace is counted as “below”. If you say the terrace is higher, the declivity of the row is counted as “above”. But did we not state: “Two rows on a terrace?²⁹, stating that one row below and two above do not form a “large vineyard” (cf. Halakhah 4:6) but a small vineyard on the top and an isolated row at the bottom. Since the two upper rows may be at slightly different heights but are counted together, their position cannot be the deciding factor.” Can you say that the row is higher? No, the terrace has to be higher. Rebbi Mana said, they declared the entire ten hand-breadths of the terrace a domain by itself³⁰.

footnotes: ²⁸ Here starts the discussion of the second sentence of the Mishnah, of a row which is “higher than 10 hand-breadths” than the other row. In the entire discussion, “higher” means “higher than 10 hand-breadths”. The question is whether the terrace wall has to be 10 hand-breadths high or whether it might be less if only the vines appear on the surface at an elevation “higher than 10 hand-breadths”. ²⁹ This must be from an otherwise unknown baraita ³⁰ R. Mana rejects the entire discussion and declares the (vertical) declivity to be a separate domain, not counted either way, so anything sown there is not impacted by anything planted below or above.

We have stated there³¹ 11:4. It is forbidden to transport anything in the public domain on the Sabbath a distance of more than four cubits. “Transporting” in the legal sense includes taking up, moving, and depositing. If one of these elements is missing, no offense occured. “Public domain” in this context extends only to ten hand-breadths above ground. Anything higher is free space to which the prohibition of transporting does not extend. Hence, if something was taken up from the public domain, thrown, and came to rest in free space, it is as if it was thrown and never came to rest; no offense occured. But if it came to rest within ten hand-breadths of the ground, the Sabbath was desecrated.: “If somebody throws from four cubits [distance] to a wall, if [the projectile hits] higher than ten hand-breadths, he is like one throwing into the air, if lower than ten hand-breadths, he is like one throwing onto the ground.” Rav Ḥisda said, if it extends slanting³² 5b, the material there being sheets of paper or parchment. In the Yerushalmi, the discussion here is reproduced in Šabbat11:3 (fol. 14a).. But will it not finally descend? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, explain it that it was a soft fig cake and it stuck³³ 7b, 100 a.. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose, does this not imply that the declivity of a terrace belongs to the level below³⁴. In that case, the Mishnah seems to extend the reach of any “bottom” upwards to 10 hand-breadths. He is answered that plants may grow on a slanted wall but anything sticking to the lower part of any wall bordering the public domain will be rubbed off; the fig cake cannot be considered to be at rest at such a place. The Babli (Šabbat 100a) disagrees with R. Yose and points out that even if a Tannaitic statement such as suggested by him did exist, it would not prove anything since R. Meïr [Yerushalmi Šabbat 11:3 (fol. 13a), Eruvin 10:8 (fol. 26b); Babli Šabbat 7b, 100 a, Eruvin 11b, 33b, 101b, Yoma 11b] considers any depression a separate domain excluded from “free space”.? He said to him, there the vegetables profit from the terrace but here people rub it and it falls down. If it would say, if there is a hole [in the wall] and it profits from the hole just as vegetables profit from the terrace, you would be justified.

footnotes: ³¹ Mishnah Šabbat ³² Taking מדד not as Biblical Hebrew “to measure”, but from Arabic مدّ، مدّد “to extend, to rise”. R. Ḥisda’s problem is that nothing can stop on a vertical wall. The same answer is given by R. Ḥisda’s student and son-in-law Rava in Babli Šabbat ³³ The same answer is given by R. Joḥanan himself in Babli Šabbat ³⁴ R. Ḥaggai assumes that the reason one insists on a separation of 10 hand-breadths is the same for the rules of the Sabbath and of kilaim

“Two gardens, one above the other, the lower one is made into a vineyard, the upper one is not made into a vineyard. One may sow the upper one until one reaches the airspace of ten³⁵ 3:9, in a slightly different text. Instead of “the airspace of ten”, the Tosephta has: “the stems of the lower one.” The text is missing in the Vienna ms.; the language is probably influenced by the second sentence. The version in the Yerushalmi permits sowing on the declivity above 10 hand-breadths from the bottom. The question of R. Abun bar Ḥiyya refers to these lower 10 hand-breadths..” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeïra, does this not imply that the declivity of a terrace belongs to the below? He said to him, because plants will bend into the airspace of the vineyard³⁶. “If the upper one is made into a vineyard but the lower one is not made into a vineyard, one may sow the lower one and the declivity until one reaches the roots of the vines.” Rebbi Yose said, one does not have here “the roots of the vines³⁷” but “below three [hand-breadths],” following that which was stated: “roots of madder that enter within four cubits of a vineyard are permitted below three hand-breadths.”

footnotes: ³⁵ Tosephta Kilaim ³⁶ This part of the statement does not prove anything; since we speak about sowing on an incline, the growing plants will bend over the vines. ³⁷ The depth of the “roots of the vines” would be different for different strains of grapes. R. Yose insists that the three-hand-breadths rule proclaimed in Halakhah 1:8 (Notes 158 ff.) and quoted by him is valid for all plants, even vines.

MISHNAH: If somebody trains a vine over part of a papyrus³⁸ 17.3. Some sources here and in Kelim have אפפיריו, a medieval commentator writes הפיפיריות. The latter reading, seeing in the prothetic א the definite article ה, is supported by the Halakhah which uses פיפור, פיפר and the similar reading of most commentaries in Kelim. Most moderns see in the word a form of Greek πάπυρος (but this fits better with Tosephta Kelim b.m. 5:15, כלי פפיר “paper vessels”.) According to the Geonim, one takes rope from papyrus leaves (according to Maimonides, the reeds themselves) and puts them crosswise into a frame in order to form a platform that will be supported by posts. Sources confirming the use of papyrus rope in Antiquity are adduced by Loew in Krauss’s Dictionary, s. v. פיפור. {In view of the formal parallelism between “part of a papyrus” and “part of a futile tree”, “part of a fig tree”, one might also take papyrus as a living plant, rather than a rope or mat of papyrus fibers. Papyrus antiquorum, mostly perennial grassy plants cultivated throughout the ancient world, had multiple commercial uses: e. g., Cyperus esculentus with edible, oil-rich bulbs (Bulbuli Trasi,Dulcinia), Cyperus officinalis, used medically, Cyperus textilis, used in basket-weaving and paper manufacture. A papyrus plant growing near a vine would therefore also make sense in a discussion of kilaim. (E. G.)}, he should not sow under the rest, but if he did, it does not become sanctified³⁹. If the new growth expands it becomes forbidden. The same applies to one who trains over parts of a futile tree⁴⁰. If somebody trains a vine over part of a fruit tree he may sow under the rest. If new grows expands, he must move it⁴¹. It happened that Rebbi Joshua visited Rebbi Ismael from Kefar Aziz⁴². He showed him a vine trained over parts of a fig tree and asked, may I sow under the rest? He told him, it is permitted. He took him from there to the armory and showed him a vine trained over part of a beam and a sycamore stump on which were many beams. He said to him, under that one beam it is forbidden, the rest is permitted. What is a futile tree? One which does not bear fruit. Rebbi Meïr says, every tree is futile except olive and fig trees. Rebbi Yose says, a futile tree is one of which one does not plant entire orchards.

footnotes: ³⁸ Definition of the Gaonic commentary to Kelim ³⁹ It is clear from the last sentence in the Mishnah that one speaks here of a single vine, not a vineyard or a trellis of five vines. Therefore, only a minimal distance has to be kept from the stem of the vine. Since the vine will expand, and the area below the part of the papyrus not covered by the branches and leaves of the vine is certainly more than a cubit away from the stem and can be used for other crops. However, if either the sown plants or the vine expand so that now parts of the plants are directly under the vine, the plants become forbidden. A prudent farmer, therefore, will not even start sowing close to the vine. ⁴⁰ In modern Hebrew, the term means “non-fruit-bearing tree” and סרק (2) has the general connotation of “useless, abortive”. [סרק (1) means “to comb”.] The word may be derived from the root that appears as Arabic סרק, Assyrian שרק, “to rob” (as in Saracen), a tree which robs the farmer of his labor if he would tend it. It is clear from the next Mishnah that a tree bearing cheap fruit is also אילן סרק. Because it does not bear high quality fruit, it has the same status as a rope or a beam. ⁴¹ He must move the vine to reestablish the required separation. ⁴² This is the reading of the Leyden ms. and the texts dependent on it. All other Mishnah texts have: “Rebbi Joshua visited Rebbi Ismael at Kefar Aziz”, לכפר instead of מכפר. In that case, the host is R. Ismael (ben Elisha), the student of R. Joshua, who should have known his teacher’s opinion. It therefore seems likely that the Yerushalmi version is superior and the host is a minor figure mentioned only here. The paragraph establishes the previous Mishnah as R. Joshua’s.

HALAKHAH: Ḥizqiah said, the Mishnah speaks about distances from three to four hand-breadths⁴³ 1:9, Sukkah 1:9. Hence, sowing within three hand-breadths of a vine certainly sanctifies. If the distance is more than three but less than four, one tells the farmer to complete the four hand-breadths. More than four, while still forbidden, does not sanctify and even if the vine leaves grow they do not interfere as long as the distance is more than three hand-breadths.. Less than three is close up, up to four one has to complete, four is easy for it. How far⁴⁴? Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, up to four cubits. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, up to six cubits. Rebbi Mana said: I went to Caesarea and heard Rebbi Hoshiah bar Shammai in the name of Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar: If there were two papyri, it is permitted⁴⁵. Rebbi Ḥinena said, a statement disagrees: If he usually oversteps, it is forbidden. It was stated thus: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, if he usually oversteps between lattices, it is treated as a single lattice.

footnotes: ⁴³ In all respects, a distance of up to three hand-breadths is neglected, cf. Mishnah 4:4, Eruvin ⁴⁴ How much does one have to separate from the place shaded by the vine leaves that it should not be forbidden to sow there? R. Jacob bar Idi applies the rules of a trellis to the vine trained over a lattice. It is difficult to find a reason for the second opinion given in the name of R. Simeon ben Laqish and probably difficult to find a papyrus mat wide enough that away from the vine there should still be six unoccupied cubits. {It seems, therefore, that R. Simeon ben Laqish takes פיפיוד as name of the plant; cf. Note 38.} ⁴⁵ If two papyrus mats (or ropes, or plants) are laid out parallel over poles and a vine is trained over one of them, the other one is not affected. The opposing opinion states that if the vintner in the ordinary care of the vineyard usually steps from under one mat to under the other, they are considered as one and subject to the 4 cubits/6 cubits rule.

What is the difference between a futile and a fruit tree? A person will disregard a futile tree relative to his vine but nobody will disregard a fruit tree relative to his vine⁴⁶.

footnotes: ⁴⁶ The “futile” tree will not be considered as more than the support of the vine and will not receive attention for its own sake.

There⁴⁷ 26:4. The only things that may be impure are living humans, dead humans and animals, vessels and garments, food and drink, and houses. Tractate Kelim deals with the impurity of vessels and textiles. In that tractate, “pure” means that the vessel in question cannot possibly become impure; “impure” means that it may become impure if exposed to impurity. If a vessel is used as a container, it can become impure as long as it can be used as container. If an impure vessel springs a leak large enough to make it unusable for its primary purpose, it becomes pure. Animal hides used as containers for water or wine are obtained by skinning slaughtered lambs or sheep. The skin then is open at the neck, the tail, and the four feet. If the feet and tail end are sown tight, there is no doubt that a permanent container was formed which may become impure. If the feet are only tied with rope, they also can become untied; the vessel so created is temporary and cannot become impure. The anonymous Tanna states that Arabs never sow their skins; they have developed a technique to tie the skins with rope to create permanent vessels. R. Meïr extends the rule to all skins whose knots are not supposed to be opened. R. Yose notes that any knot can be untied without damaging the skin; hence, no knot is permanent., we have stated: “All tied-up water skins are pure except those of Arabs. Rebbi Meïr says, temporarily tied ones are pure, permanently tied ones are impure. Rebbi Yose says, all tied ones are pure.” Some Tannaïm state it inverted⁴⁸. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yasa: Like our Mishnah. Rebbi Yudan said, the indicator of Kelim is Kilaim⁴⁹, a “futile” tree is turned into a prop for the vine and loses its character of tree by the vintner’s intention as stated in the preceding paragraph; so likewise the knots with which the skin is tied are temporary or permanent according to the intention of the owner. If we do not change the names in Kelim, the arguments of R. Meïr become consistent; the Mishnah Kelim should not be changed., for if it were not so, what would be the difference between permanent and temporary tie? In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said: A permanent tie must be cut, a temporary tie does not have to be cut⁵⁰ and Kilaim..

footnotes: ⁴⁷ Mishnah Kelim ⁴⁸ They switch the statements attached to the names of R. Meïr and R. Yose. This invites comparison with the Mishnah here. ⁴⁹ In Kilaim ⁵⁰ The House of Yannai disagree with R. Yasa: The difference between temporary and permanent knots is not one of intent but of fact. A temporary knot is one that may be untied by hand, even if it is intended to be permanent. A permanent knot is one that cannot be untied with one’s fingers; it is so tight that it can be removed only by cutting the rope. In that case, a tool was needed to create the openings; this action is as if one used a drill to make a hole in a pot, which destroys the vessel and makes it pure. As a consequence, the permanently tied skin is a vessel and can become impure; there are parallel arguments in Kelim

MISHNAH: An interrupted trellis is more than eight cubits. No linear measurement stated by the Sages requires “more than” except an interrupted trellis. What is an interrupted trellis? A trellis [whose vines are] dried up in its middle, but there remained five vines on each side⁵¹. If between them are eight cubits, one should not sow there. If there are more than eight cubits, one gives each side its working space⁵² and he may sow the rest. A trellis which starts from a wall in a corner and ends there⁶⁸, one gives it its working space and he may sow the rest. Rebbi Yose said, if there are less than four cubits one should not bring seeds there⁶⁹. Sticks that stand out from the trellis, if he worries whether to remove them⁷⁰, then under them it is permitted, but if he made them so that the new growth can expand on them, it is forbidden. One looks at a blossom that comes out from the trellis as if a plumb-line were hanging down from it; under it it is forbidden⁷². The same holds for a branch⁷³. Under a shoot of vine drawn from one tree to another, it is forbidden⁷⁴. If he binds them together with a rope or bast, under the binding it is permitted⁷⁵. But if the rope was drawn to support future growth of the vine or other shoots that will appear in the growing season, it becomes subject to the laws of vines.. But if he did that to accomodate future growth, it is forbidden.

footnotes: ⁵¹ One vine in the middle died. The original large trellis is now split into two small legal trellises. ⁵² The usual six hand-breadths around the trellises in each direction. ⁶⁸ According to Maimonides, the trellis itself is built parallel to the walls, forming an angle. According to R. Simson (and apparently R. Abraham ben David), the five vines are in a straight line from one wall to the other, forming the base of a right triangle of which parts of the two walls form the legs. Then six hand-breadths from the base in the triangle are forbidden, the remainder may be sown even if the altitude of the triangle is less than four cubits. ⁶⁹ Cf. Mishnah 5:4, Note 56. ⁷⁰ The trellis has irregular cross beams. If he would like to cut them to one size but for some reason (e. g., not to touch a shaky trellis) does not do it, the excess width does not interfere with sowing. But if he intends to use the beams to support extending branches and leaves then they are part of the trellis and forbidden. ⁷² Any growth expanding over the sides of the trellis extends the area under which nothing can be sown (plus its six hand-breadths of working space). ⁷³ A branch of a single vine. The forbidden space is the interior of the parallel figure in distance 6 of the orthogonal projection of the entire vine into the ground. ⁷⁴ Naturally plus six hand-breadths on each side. ⁷⁵ The vine is not long enough to reach from one tree to the next; the vintner tied a rope around the end of the shoot and the tree. Then the rope is not a vine and not subject to the laws of kilaim

HALAKHAH: Does this not disagree with Rebbi Zeïra since Rebbi Zeïra said⁵³, eight except for the place of the trunks? Explain that as eight cubits and a little more⁵⁴1:3, Ahilut 12:6) states that the circumference of a circle of diameter 1 is 3 it means that 3 ≤ π ≤ ¹⁹/6 (3 ≤ π ≤ ¹⁶/5).. And why has this not been stated? Are you not concurring with Rebbi Joḥanan that in all linear measurements stated by the Sages, “more than” means [more by] a hand-breadth⁵⁵ 4:9) explains: כמה הוא ועוד אחד מששה טפחים באמה. “How much is ‘more than’? One of six hand-breadths per cubit.” The correct interpretation has been given by R. S. Lieberman: In Tosephta Kelim,Baba Meẓia‘ 6:13, R. Meïr declares the cubits used in a vineyard to be cubits of five hand-breadths (cf. Chapter 5, Note 27). The Tosephta here redefines the hand-breadth to be added as one new hand-breadth, when 6 new hand-breadths are 5 common hand-breadths or one vine cubit. According to the Tosephta, “more than” means at least ⅚ of a common cubit. This Tosephta text is in the manuscript and the editio princeps. R. Isaac Simponti, R. Simson and R. Abraham ben David read “one sixth of a cubit”, leaving open the possibility that hand-breadth and cubit are the standard ones. Maimonides has another reading, “1/60 cubit”, supported by Caphtor Waperaḥ and R. Bezalel Ashkenazi. However, as R. Abraham ben David points out, such a text would contradict the Yerushalmi here; the length added by R. Zeïra is certainly more than a tenth of a hand-breadth.? But what he added is little, therefore it was not stated.

footnotes: ⁵³ Halakhah 4:8, speaking of the parallel rules for vineyards. ⁵⁴ Less than a hand-breadth. As explained here, the minimal length of which formal congnizance is taken is a hand-breadth, one sixth of a cubit; smaller distances are not enumerated in the Mishnah. If the Mishnah (Eruvin ⁵⁵ The Tosephta (Kilaim

Rebbi Jonah asked: Why do we say: “No linear measurements stated by the Sages require ‘more’ except an interrupted trellis?” Did we not state⁵⁶ 7:2: “The flour sacrifice of a Nazir came in two parts, loaves and flatbreads, but no paste (from flour and oil). It turns out that these are 10 Jerusalem qab which equal six esronim and excess.” Mishnah 7:1 had stated that the three kinds of bread for a thanksgiving sacrifice came from 10 esronim which were 15 Jerusalem qab. Hence, the breads of the Nazir are 6⅔ esronim. The “excess” (in the Hebrew, an otherwise nonexisting plural of “more”) is ⅔ issaron. We use the expression “more” in a domain other than vineyards.: “Ten Jerusalem qab which equal six esronim and excess”? There about volumes, here about linear measures. But did we not state⁵⁷ 4:7: “R. Eliezer says, heave can be lifted by one in 101. Rebbi Joshua says, by one in more than 100; that ‘more’ has no measure. Rebbi Yose ben Meshullam said, ‘more’ is a qab per one hundred seah, a sixth of the amount that causes dema‘”. Dema‘, the mixture of profane food and heave, was discussed in Demay, Chapter 4, Note 27. If the amount of heave is small, it is possible to remove an amount equal to the heave and transfer the holiness to that food; the remainder of the food then returns to profane status. R. Eliezer states that in this respect “small” means at most 1 in 100 (1 part heave in 101 overall). R. Joshua requires that the amount be at most 1 in 99+ε; ε 0 being arbitrarily small. R. Yose ben Meshullam requires that the amount of heave be at most 1 in 99.1666̄; if the amount of heave is one seah, the amount of profane grain has to be 99 seah plus one sixth oí the amount causing the trouble, i. e., 99 ⅙ seah. {In Babli Eruvin 83a, “and more” is defined as one twentyfourth of the volume of an egg.}: “Rebbi Yose ben Meshullam said, ‘more’ is a qab per one hundred seah, a sixth of the amount that causes dema‘”? There about volumes, here about linear measures. But did we not state⁵⁸ 2:5: “Additionally, R. Jehudah ben Baba said, one may carry (on the Sabbath) in a garden or a corral which measure seventy and a remainder by seventy and a remainder and are enclosed by a fence ten hand-breadths high on condition that they contain a watchman’s place.” On the Sabbath, one may carry his utensils in his house and in any enclosed space containing a human dwelling. Enclosed spaces no part of which is used as a human dwelling, such as vegetable plots and corrals, are accepted as private domain only if their surface area is not more that 5000 square cubits, the surface area of the enclosed space of the tabernacle (cf. Peah Chapter 2, Note 31). Since √5000 = 70.71068, R. Jehudah ben Baba’s remainder is 0.71068 cubits, a linear measure.: “Rebbi Jehudah ben Baba said, the garden and the corral which are seventy and a remainder by seventy and a remainder”? Samuel said, they taught two thirds of a cubit⁵⁹.

footnotes: ⁵⁶ Mishnah Menaḥot ⁵⁷ Mishnah Terumot ⁵⁸ Mishnah Eruvin ⁵⁹ Samuel notes that for non-mathematicians the domain is limited to 70 cubits 4 hand-breadths square, 70.666̄ cubits square. The excess over 70 is a genuine remainder, less than one cubit, but it is not a “more” which by definition can be at most one hand-breadth, the smallest unit of length accepted in these tractates of the Mishnah.

There is no difference whether one built a fence and then planted eleven vines or he planted eleven vines and then built a fence⁶⁰. If the middle vine is destroyed we have trellis and interrupted trellis⁶¹. If the fence is destroyed, there is no trellis and no interrupted trellis. Rebbi Eudaimon, brother of Rebbi Yose, inquired: If he then rebuilt the fence, since the trellis was reconstituted, do you say that the interrupted trellis also was reconstituted⁶²?

footnotes: ⁶⁰ Cf. Note 1 for a discussion of the role of the fence. ⁶¹ There now are two legal trellises that form one interrupted trellis. ⁶² Since growing other crops in a vineyard is a potential transgression of a biblical prohibition, in doubt one has to take the more severe position. The absence of an answer therefore implies a positive answer.

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Once Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri burned in Nagnegar⁶³. What did he burn? He burned an interrupted trellis⁶⁴. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Once Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri burned in Nagnegar. What did he burn? He burned between the trellis and the fence. Rebbi Yose said, I pointed out a difficulty before Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: It is understandable, if he burned an interrupted trellis then the words of the Sages disagree with his⁶⁵. But if he burned between the trellis and the fence, are there words of the Sages which disagree with his? He had not heard what Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree about the trellis itself: Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is forbidden and sanctifies. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is forbidden but does not sanctify⁶⁶.

footnotes: ⁶³ Cf. Chapter 4, Note 58. ⁶⁴ He considered the growth illegal and sanctified; therefore, he destroyed it by burning. Since this is recorded as a memorable event, it cannot be accepted as common practice; one does not make a statement every time an accepted law has been executed. ⁶⁵ The majority follows Mishnah 7:3 that the prohibition of an interrupted trellis is rabbinical, not biblical. A crop growing there does not sanctify and should not be burned. ⁶⁶ According to R. Joḥanan, five vines on a trellis form a vineyard in the biblical sense; according to R. Simeon ben Laqish there is never a vineyard in the biblical sense unless it contains at least two parallel rows.

All this applies if in the corner there are four hand-breadths of empty space⁶⁷.

footnotes: ⁶⁷ The Mishnah is valid only if between any vine and any fence there are at least four hand-breadths of empty space; otherwise, six hand-breadths are forbidden around every vine, cf. Mishnah 5:4.

We stated here the opinion of Rebbi Yose and stated it there⁷¹. If we had stated it here but not there, we would have said he says it is forbidden here because of the laws of the trellis, but there where one does not deal with the laws of the trellis he would say it is permitted. Hence, it is necessary to state it there. Or if we had stated it there but not here, we would have said there he says it is forbidden because it is enclosed on all four sides, but here where it is not enclosed on all four sides he would say it is permitted. Hence, it is necessary to state it both here and there.

footnotes: ⁷¹ Mishnah 5:4. True duplicate statements are not admitted in the Mishnah (except in collections of stated historical character, e. g., Tractate Idiut.) Therefore, if a duplicate statement does occur, one has to find reasons to explain the necessity of the duplication.

There⁷⁶ one says, one considers as if a metal spit was stuck there. Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: As far as was intended⁷⁷.

footnotes: ⁷⁶ In Babylonia. ⁷⁷ The translation is tentative. Medieval authors do not comment on this sentence. R. Eliahu Fulda and almost everybody else identify נקמן with נקמז "shrunk". R. Eliahu Wilna explains as "bent". These explanations have no basis and make little sense. I am taking קמן in the sense of Arabic "to intend". Then this paragraph belongs to the preceding Halakhah: Under an irregular trellis, the width is forbidden as far as the vintner intended to let the vines grow. At the end of this space, it is as if a metal spit subtended the bars; the wood sticking out farther is not counted.

Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba⁷⁸ in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Under the grapes it is forbidden and sanctifies but not under the leaves. Rebbi Yose said, even under the leaves it is forbidden and sanctifies⁷⁹.

footnotes: ⁷⁸ Galilean Amora of the third generation. He quotes R. Simeon ben Laqish and is reported as teacher of R. Yasa (Assi). ⁷⁹ Vine leaves are also a commercial crop.