MISHNAH: If one sinks¹ a vine into the ground he should not bring seeds over it unless there are three hand-breadths of earth above it, even if he sank it in a gourd² or in a pipe³. If he sank it in a rock⁴ it is permitted to bring seeds there even if it is covered only by three fingers’⁵ depth of earth. For a knee-shaped vine one measures only from the second stem⁶.

footnotes: ¹ He takes a branch of a vine, bends it down into a ditch, covers the ditch with earth, and lets it come out again. Then the branch will grow roots in the earth and one has a new vine. ² A dried-up gourd used as ditch. ³ A wooden or clay pipe. ⁴ It cannot really be a rock but must be ground hard as rock. ⁵ A finger is one fourth of a hand-breadth. ⁶ If a vine is bent back while growing and enters the ground again in a kind of natural sinking, the six hand-breadths for its working space are measured only from the point where it reappears above ground. (R. Simson explains: “a grafted vine” but this does not fit either language or context.)

HALAKHAH: “He should not bring seeds over it,” therefore it is permitted on the side⁷ 19b, this is stated as a baraita.. What are we dealing with? If it is because of seeds in a tree, why are we dealing with a vine and not any tree? If it is because of working space, they should mention six⁸. It might follow Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Aqiba says three. If it were following Rebbi Aqiba, it should mention three on the side. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: It is because of seeds on top of a vine⁹.

footnotes: ⁷ In the Babli, Baba Batra ⁸ The Mishnah should state that six hand-breadths on each side of the buried shoot are forbidden as working space, or at least three handbreadths following Rebbi Aqiba (Mishnah 6:1). ⁹ This confirms the original statement that the only forbidden space is on top of the buried shoot.

There¹⁰ 2:1. The adobe wall is either common property of the landlord and his neighbor or totally the neighbor’s; the landlord is required to take all necessary precautions to avoid damage to his fellow man’s property., we have stated: “One keeps seeds, the plough, and urine three hand-breadths away from a wall.” Rebbi Jeremiah said that Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba raised a question: There¹¹ and “here” refers to Baba Batra. It is possible that this paragraph is copied here from a Tiberian version of Baba Batra that has not come down to us. In the transmitted Caesarean version of Baba Batra (2:1, fol. 13b), the statement of R. Yose refers to the prohibition of storing salt or quick lime near somebody else’s wall. R. Simson reads “here” for “there” but it is not clear whether this is a genuine reading or an adaptation for the purposes of his commentary. The argument is that crop plants are allowed to be grown near a buried vine; their roots are not supposed to expand over the buried shoot, but since they are not allowed to be grown near a wall, one expects their roots to expand sideways and damage the wall., you say that the roots do not expand sideways and here you say, the roots do expand sideways! Rebbi Yose said, in both cases the roots do not expand sideways but they create soft earth and undermine the base of the wall¹² 19b, the printed editions quote the statement of R. Yose as “R. Ḥaga in the name of R. Yose.” This version is impossible since R. Ḥaga (Ḥaggai) was older than R. Yose and a greater authority in his lifetime. One has to prefer the reading of all mss. (Diqduqe Soferim Baba Bathra p. מה) “R. Ḥana”. In that case, “R. Yose” would probably be R. Yasa (Assi).. You can see that because we also stated “urine”. Does urine expand sideways? Rebbi Yose the son of Rebbi Abun explained, did we not also state “the plough”? Does the plough expand sideways?

footnotes: ¹⁰ Mishnah Baba Batra ¹¹ “There” means Kilaim ¹² In Babli Baba Batra

“Even if he sank it in a gourd or in a pipe.” That means, in a clay pipe; but in a lead pipe it does not need three hand-breadths of earth on top.

“If he sank it in a rock.” That means, in hard [earth], but in soft [earth] it cleaves¹³ it.

footnotes: ¹³ R. Simson reads מתפתחת “it [the root] can develop”.

That is¹⁴ only if the first stem is not visible, but if the first stem is visible one allows six hand-breadths from either stem. You can see that because we also stated afterwards¹⁵: “If one sinks three vines and their stems are visible,” and we have stated on this: When has this been said? For a vineyard¹⁶. But concerning the working space one allows six hand-breadths for either one.

footnotes: ¹⁴ Here starts the discussion of the last part of the Mishnah, regarding the knee-shaped vine. ¹⁵ Mishnah 7:2. ¹⁶ Regarding the conditions under which three vines can be extended to form a legal vineyard. If they are too close to or too far from one another, each one of the six vines so created is given its own working space.

MISHNAH: If one sinks three vines and their stems are visible, Rebbi Eleazar bar Rebbi Zadoq says if there are between them from four to eight cubits, they go together; otherwise, they do not go together¹⁸. A dried-up vine is forbidden but does not sanctify¹⁹. Rebbi Meïr says, cotton also is forbidden but does not sanctify. Rebbi Eleazar bar Rebbi Zadoq says in his name²⁰, even on top of the vine it is forbidden²¹ but does not sanctify. The following are forbidden but do not sanctify: The excess of a dried-up vineyard²⁷, the excess of the circumference of a vineyard²⁸, the excess of an interrupted trellis²⁹, and the excess of a papyrus³⁰. But under a vine, the working space of a vine, and the four cubits of a vineyard do sanctify.

footnotes: ¹⁸ If one has three vines in a row and sinks a shoot from each one to get another row of three vines, if the distance between the rows and between the vines in one row is between four and eight cubits then one has a legal vineyard since five of the six vines would be enough (Halakhah 4:6). If the distances are too small, one has six single vines. ¹⁹ If one sows within six hand-breadths from a dead vine it does not sanctify. ²⁰ In R. Meïr’s name. This attribution is missing in the Genizah ms., probably correctly; cf. Note 23. ²¹ The meaning of this sentence will be clarified in the Halakhah. ²⁷ By Mishnah 4:1, if a vineyard dried up in the middle, a space of 16 cubits square cannot be sown. But only four cubits on each side are needed for working the vineyard. If the dried-up space contains a square of sides 16-ε, the inner (8-ε)-by-(8-ε) space cannot be worked on as a rabbinic, rather than a biblical prohibition. Working that inner space is forbidden but a transgression does not sanctify either growth or vineyard. ²⁸ By Mishnah 4:2, 12 cubits have to be left empty between a vineyard whose outer rows have died and the fence. Again, if there are 12-ε cubits, of these only four are biblical, the remaining 8-ε have rabbinic status only. ²⁹ Since the constituent parts of an interrupted trellis do not form vineyards by themselves, of the eight cubits between the inner vines only one cubit on each side (six hand-breadths) will sanctify, the remaining six cubits represent rabbinic prohibition. ³⁰ If vines that do not form a vineyard are drawn over papyrus, only the space under any part of any vine is biblically forbidden; the rest is a rabbinic prohibition (Halakhah 6:3).

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah is Rebbi Meïr’s²³.

footnotes: ²³ The Halakhah discusses only the second part of the Mishnah, listing the plants near which it is forbidden to sow but which do not sanctify. Since part of the Mishnah is attributed to R. Meïr, all of it belongs to R. Meïr. The statement makes more sense if the Mishnah follows the reading of the Genizah text, Note 20.

One understands in winter²⁴, but in summer? There are places where they lose their leaves even in summer.

footnotes: ²⁴ This refers to the statement that it is forbidden to sow next to a dead vine. The only reason for such a rule is bad appearance, that passers-by will not notice that the vine is dead and will think that the farmer sows forbidden seeds. One understands that this is a concern in late fall and early winter, after the old leaves have been shed and the new ones did not grow yet, but in summer when the leaves cover the ripening grapes there should be no problem. The answer is that there is a problem with varieties whose grapes ripen in June and will have lost their leaves by mid-July.

Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: The Mishnah speaks of the space above the shoot²⁵. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: The Mishnah speaks about the air space of ten²⁶. Rebbi Yose said, we were of the opinion that a vineyard has air space; a single vine has no air space. Since Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: The Mishnah speaks about the air space of ten, that means that even a single vine has air space.

footnotes: ²⁵ This refers to the last sentence in the Mishnah, “even on top of the vine it is forbidden but does not sanctify.” Rebbi Zeïra refers this to the shoot of vine sunk under less than three hand-breadths of earth. ²⁶ If the vines are on a terraced hill and the next terrace is at least ten hand-breadths higher, the wall of the terrace terminates the working space (for vineyard or single vine); planting inside six hand-breadths or four cubits, as the case may be, is forbidden but does not sanctify if the vertical distance is at least ten hand-breadths. {R. Simson thinks that one speaks about plants in flower pots hanging over the vines; Maimonides might agree with this interpretation.}

The excess of the circumference of a vineyard is four cubits³¹, the excess of a dried-up vineyard is four cubits, the excess of an interrupted trellis is six hand-breadths, and the excess of papyrus is six hand-breadths.

footnotes: ³¹ The language is elliptic: The excess of the circumference of a vineyard is defined as excess of the distance over and above 4 cubits, as explained in the Notes to the Mishnah. The other statements have a corresponding interpretation.

What is the status of the intermediate spaces³²? Rebbi Joḥanan said, they are forbidden and sanctify. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they are forbidden and do not sanctify. What can you say³³? If it is a large vineyard, what about its dry spot, even where it is planted³⁴! If it is a small vineyard, it has no circumference³⁵. But we must deal with a large vineyard planted in the manner of a small one³⁶. Rebbi Zeïra said, this implies that a large vineyard planted eight by eight has no circumference³⁷. If you say that the inside is forbidden and sanctifies if it is planted 16 by 16, the outside not so much more³⁸?

footnotes: ³² This refers to Mishnaiot 4:8–9, that if a vineyard is planted in such a way that the distance from one vine to the next in both directions is more than eight but less than 16 cubits, one may not sow there. This situation really should have been dealt with in our Mishnah since in that configuration there are points distant more than four cubits from any vine. Since it is not mentioned in our Mishnah, R. Joḥanan concludes that sowing there must sanctify. {The explanation of this paragraph follows an idea of R. Eliahu Wilna who, however, feels compelled to rewrite the text.} ³³ Here follows the argument of R. Joḥanan against R. Simeon ben Laqish. ³⁴ Since for R. Simeon ben Laqish any spot distant more than eight but less than 16 cubits is forbidden but does not sanctify, why does the Mishnah speak about a dry spot? ³⁵ Chapter 4, Note 37. The Mishnah cannot speak about a “small” vineyard. ³⁶ The distances from one vine to the other and between two rows of vines are at least four but definitely less than eight cubits. In that case, the objections do not apply. ³⁷ Since the Mishnah declares that outside of eight it does not sanctify; dried-up vines cannot make the situation worse. ³⁸ This is R. Simeon ben Laqish’s argument against all the preceding. If inside it sanctifies up to 16 cubits there would be no reason to require only 12 on the outside.

Rebbi Yose said, one whips only for the main vineyard³⁹.

footnotes: ³⁹ Even though the Mishnah establishes the cases in which the new growth sanctifies, the biblical commandment that can be enforced by the criminal court only refers to grain sown in a vineyard.

MISHNAH: If somebody draws his vine over somebody else’s grain it sanctifies and he is responsible for its alienation⁴⁰ 15b.. Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon say, nobody can sanctify anything that is not his. Rebbi Yose said, it happened that someone sowed in his vineyard in the Sabbatical year⁴¹. When this came before Rebbi Aqiba, he said nobody can sanctify anything that is not his.

footnotes: ⁴⁰ The neighbor’s grain has to be burned but the neighbor has a claim enforceable in court against the offender. This position of the anonymous Tanna is accepted as practice in Babli Menaḥot ⁴¹ While the farmer remains the owner of the land in the Sabbatical year, the yield of that year is common property of all people. That means that while the vines remain private property (except for the grapes hanging on them), the grain never was the private property of the person sowing it.

HALAKHAH: It is written (Deut. 22:9): “Do not sow kilaim in your vineyard.” This refers to your own vineyard. From where about another person’s vineyard? The verse says, kilaim, no vineyard and no kilaim.⁴³. 230 on the verse: “Do not sow kilaim in your vineyard, lest the fulness of the seed you are sowing be sanctified together with the yield of the vineyard.” The Sifry reads: “I understand not only a fruit-bearing vineyard, from where a vineyard that is not fruit-bearing? The verse says ‘the vineyard’, any vineyard. I understand not only your own vineyard, from where other persons’ vineyard? The verse says ‘do not sow kilaim’, in any way.” R. S. Adani argues that in contrast to Lev. 19:19, where the direct object precedes the predicate, in Deut.22:9 the predicate precedes the direct object and this is always taken as indicating that the prohibition stated at the beginning of the verse covers all situations the verse refers to. Hence, the operative word is not כרמך “your vineyard” but the last word of the sentence, הכרם “any vineyard.” Rebbi Eleazar said, this is Rebbi Meïr’s, for Rebbi Meïr said that a Gentile cannot acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithes⁴⁴. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is the opinion of everybody, explain it by a Gentile who sowed his vineyard kilaim and a Jew bought it from him⁴⁵.

footnotes: ⁴³ The argument is slightly more clear in the version of Sifry Deut ⁴⁴ Since the Mishnah makes no difference whether the neighbor is Jewish or Gentile, its author must hold that the laws of the Land are not abrogated by Gentile ownership. ⁴⁵ Even in the scenario envisaged by R. Eleazar, one cannot infer anything since the Gentile is not required to follow the obligations which in Jewish opinion are a lien on the Land. They are only activated in case a Jew buys the real estate from the Gentile; then the neighbor is a Jew and nobody holds that the obligations are not in force.

Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose, both of them say that it is Rebbi Meïr’s⁴⁶. [An animal] which was worshipped: Some Tannaïm state that it is forbidden⁴⁷ 6:1). The Mishnah states that such an animal is forbidden as a sacrifice but its meat may be eaten by private persons since usufruct of living things cannot become forbidden. whether it is his own or somebody else’s; some Tannaïm state that his own is forbidden, somebody else’s is permitted. They wanted to say, the opinion that it is forbidden whether it is his own or somebody else’s is Rebbi Meïr’s and Rebbi Jehudah’s; the opinion that his own is forbidden, somebody else’s is permitted, is Rebbi Yose’s and Rebbi Simeon’s. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi La: It is everybody’s opinion. Just as you say there that a living thing is forbidden for Heaven even though it is permitted for the private person, so anything that is not yours may be forbidden for Heaven even though it is permitted for the private person⁴⁸ 6:1 that an animal used for idolatrous purposes (or for sodomy) is forbidden as sacrifice under all circumstances. The argument about sacrifices is irrelevant for the rules of kilaim..

footnotes: ⁴⁶ The anonymous Tanna of the Mishnah cannot be either R. Yose or R. Simeon; anonymous statements of the Mishnah are attributed to R. Meïr unless an argument can be given to the contrary. ⁴⁷ An animal used for idolatrous practices is unfit as a sacrifice (Mishnah Temurah ⁴⁸ Since R. Yose and R. Simeon do not disagree with Mishnah Temurah

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this is a fine imposed by Rebbi Meïr⁴⁹. Did he act on that, “if somebody draws his vine over somebody else’s grain …”? But what did that person do? When it grows, it grows according to his intention⁵⁰ 100b) extends the liability to the case when a stone fence between a vineyard and a grain field developed a hole and the owner after being apprised of the problem did nothing to repair it.. One person showed his tetradrachma to Rebbi Eleazar who told him that it was good⁵¹ 100a, R. Simeon ben Laqish showed the coin to R. Eleazar and told him that he would hold him responsible if he gave the wrong appraisal.. It turned out to be worthless. This case came before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who fined him according to the following: If somebody shows a denar to the money-changer and it turns out to be bad, [the money-changer] has to pay because he takes a fee⁵² 59b). There, a distinction is made between a professional money-changer and an amateur, no mention of a difference between giving an opinion for a fee or for free. Some authors (Meïri and R. Asher ben Yeḥiel ad loc.) want to read the ruling of the Yerushalmi into the text of the Babli but their arguments are thoroughly refuted by R. Salomo ben Adrat, ad loc.. Does Rebbi Eleazar take a fee? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abuna: One who takes it into his hand has the status of one who takes a fee⁵³ 5:4, fol. 47a). The argument is not accepted.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun does not say so, but Rebbi Eleazar says that this fine is imposed by the rabbis; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish says the fine is imposed by Rebbi Meïr. When the case came before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, he asked Rebbi Eleazar, who imposed this fine? He [Rebbi Eleazar] said, the rabbis. He [Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish] answered him, go and pay⁵⁴ 99b), R. Ḥiyya paid up not because he had to, but because, in his opinion, a rabbinic authority is held to higher moral standards..

footnotes: ⁴⁹ The anonymous Tanna does not dispute that in principle nobody can sanctify anything that does not belong to him, parallel to the position of R. Yose in the preceding paragraph. The order to destroy the growth under the vine is purely rabbinical and intended to punish the mischievous vintner. In contrast to the Babli which always accepts R. Meïr’s decrees of fines, the Yerushalmi will accept only a fine imposed by a majority of the Synhedrion. ⁵⁰ What could be the reason to impose the fine? When a person draws a vine over somebody else’s grain, both the vine and the grain are permitted and legitimate. Since later he does not do anything further, of what could he be guilty? The answer is that the grain will continue to grow and that increase under the vine is a necessary consequence of the earlier action and covered by the responsibility for the prior action. In the language of the Babli, nobody can claim missing intent by stating that he wanted only to cut off his victim’s head, not to kill him. The Babli (Baba Qama ⁵¹ In the Babli, Baba Qama ⁵² A similar statement appears in the Babli (Baba Qama ⁵³ It seems that this argument is an echo of the rule that a single judge who is shown to be in error has to pay the money he erroneously took from one party if he actually handled the money himself (Giṭṭin ⁵⁴ R. Simeon ben Laqish required R. Eleazar to pay not because the law was that he had to pay, but because R. Eleazar thought the law was that he had to pay. It follows that the Yerushalmi rejects the decrees of R. Meïr not supported by a majority of Sages.In a similar case in the Babli (Baba Qama

Rebbi Joḥanan said, everybody agrees that the grapes will be forbidden⁵⁵. Rebbi Eleazar said to him, what makes forbidden is not forbidden and what is not forbidden will be forbidden⁵⁶? They disagree if somebody draws his vine over somebody else’s grain. But if somebody draws a neighbor’s vine over his own grain, everybody agrees that what makes forbidden is forbidden⁵⁷. If somebody draws a neighbor’s vine over his neighbor’s grain we can understand from the following: “Rebbi Yose said, it happened that someone sowed in his vineyard in the Sabbatical year⁴¹. When this came before Rebbi Aqiba, he said nobody can sanctify anything that is not his.” This was given as answer⁵⁸!

footnotes: ⁵⁵ They belong to the offending party. ⁵⁶ If the vine is drawn in a state in which it does not expand any further, only the growth of the grain under it makes the configuration forbidden, as stated earlier. Since the active grain is not forbidden, how can the passive grapes be forbidden? ⁵⁷ The grain of the guilty party. ⁴¹ While the farmer remains the owner of the land in the Sabbatical year, the yield of that year is common property of all people. That means that while the vines remain private property (except for the grapes hanging on them), the grain never was the private property of the person sowing it. ⁵⁸ The anonymous first Tanna will hold also in the case under discussion that vines and grain have to be burned and the guilty party charged for all expenses and loss; Rebbis Yose and Simeon hold that nothing has happened.

MISHNAH: The rapist⁵⁹ who sowed in a vineyard and it was taken from him⁶⁰, one cuts it even during a holiday⁶¹. How much does he have to give to the workers? Up to one third⁶². More than that he cuts normally, even after the holiday. When is the property called the rapist’s? From the moment it is sunk⁶³.

footnotes: ⁵⁹ A robber who terrorizes the farmer and illegally uses his land. ⁶⁰ Law enforcement returned the use of the land to its owners. ⁶¹ The intermediate days of Passover or Tabernacles, when agricultural work is permitted only if its omission would cause great harm. In our case, one has to prevent the grain from growing in its owner’s possession to avoid sanctifying the vineyard. ⁶² Since usually agricultural work cannot be done on the intermediate days of a holiday, the workers will know that the farmer is in a bind and raise their wage demands. The Halakhah will discuss what is meant by “a third” for the computation of the upper limit of wages the farmer must be ready to pay. If the workers overcharge, he may do without them and cut the grain after the holiday for regular wages. ⁶³ If the name of the original owners disappears; if local people start referring to the property by the name of the person in possession who now becomes the owner (explanation of R. Simson). If the owner runs away for fear of the rapist (explanation of Maimonides).

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abba bar Jacob in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: So is the Mishnah: One may harvest it even on a holiday⁶⁷ 30b)..

footnotes: ⁶⁷ One should not think that the Mishnah prescribes that the illegal grain must be harvested on a holiday if the field reverts to its rightful owner on a holiday. All that is stated is that one may harvest it because it looks badly (if the workers are not too expensive) even though nobody can sanctify anything that is not his and harvesting on the intermediate days of a holiday is forbidden (cf. Tosaphot Sukkah

“How much does he have to give to the workers? Up to one third.” Rav Ḥuna and Rav Sheshet: One of them says, a third of the wages, the other says, a third of the value⁷⁰.

footnotes: ⁷⁰ The value of the crop endangered by the rapist’s action.

“When is the property called the rapist’s? From the moment it is sunk⁶³.” Rebbi Aḥa said: If the owners were forgotten but did not give up hope, the prohibition of the field is biblical⁷¹. If the owners did give up hope but they were not forgotten, the prohibition of the field is rabbinic. But can real estate be robbed⁷²? Rebbi La said, even though real estate cannot be robbed, one can give up hope on real estate.

footnotes: ⁶³ If the name of the original owners disappears; if local people start referring to the property by the name of the person in possession who now becomes the owner (explanation of R. Simson). If the owner runs away for fear of the rapist (explanation of Maimonides). ⁷¹ Since the Mishnah declares the property to be the rapist’s once the names of the original owners have been forgotten, he sows on his own and sanctifies the crop. But if the names of the original owners are still known, even if these have given up hope to recover the field through legal action, the rapist is not the owner and should not be able to sanctify anything that is not his. In that case, the prohibition has the status of a rabbinic fine. ⁷² Since real estate is documented, it always should be recoverable once law enforcement has been reestablished, cf. Peah Chapter 2, Note 132. In the opinion of the Babli, one may never legally give up hope on real estate, cf. Tosaphot Sukkah 30b. In Babylonia one never witnessed the prolonged abrogation of property rights by Jewish owners as in Palestine after the war of Bar Kokhba.

MISHNAH: ⁶⁴ If a storm broke vines over grain, one should fix it immediately, but in an emergency it is permitted. Grain leaning under vines, and also vegetables, one turns back and it does not sanctify⁶⁵. When does grain start to sanctify? When it is a third grown⁶⁶, and grapes once they have grown to the size of white beans. Completely dry grain and grapes completely ripe do not become sanctified.

footnotes: ⁶⁴ The Mishnah mss. in the Maimonides tradition read יגרוד “shave them off” instead of יגדור “fence them off”. The hurricane did not completely break the vines; now parts of the still living vine lie over grain. ⁶⁵ As long as the roots are outside of the working space of a vine, if the plants turn towards the vine one has to turn them away. Only roots of plants can sanctify. ⁶⁶ This may not be the intended meaning, cf. the Halakhah.

HALAKHAH: Following Ben Azai, one should shave them off. One found it stated: Rebbi Aqiba said, one should return them, Ben Azai said, one should shave them off⁷³.

footnotes: ⁷³ This belongs to the second Mishnah, the case when a storm broke branches which now are spread over grain. R. Aqiba says one should adjust the broken branches and fasten them to the vine; Ben Azai said, one should cut them off.

“When does grain start to sanctify? When it is a third grown.” Some Tannaïm state: When it grew roots. He who says when it is a third grown supports Rebbi Joḥanan. He who says when it grew roots supports Rebbi Hoshaia⁷⁴ Chapter 2, Note 132. In the opinion of the Babli, one may never legally give up hope on real estate, cf. Tosaphot Sukkah 30b. In Babylonia one never witnessed the prolonged abrogation of property rights by Jewish owners as in Palestine after the war of Bar Kokhba..

footnotes: ⁷⁴ Since real estate is documented, it always should be recoverable once law enforcement has been re-established, cf. Peah

“And grapes once they have grown to the size of white beans.” Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Hillel said, because it is written (Deut. 22:9): “And the produce of the vineyard⁷⁵.” So is the Mishnah: “They do not become sanctified”⁷⁶.

footnotes: ⁷⁵ The verse defines what is sanctified. Since it is called “produce”, some kind of produce must be visible. ⁷⁶ This refers to the last sentence in the Mishnah, “completely dry grain and grapes completely ripe do not become sanctified.” The Mishnah is formulated in the passive: completely dry produce cannot itself become sanctified because it no longer grows but produce still growing in its vicinity can become sanctified by its presence (R. S. Adani.)

MISHNAH: A flower pot with a hole sanctifies in a vineyard⁷⁷ 5:10., but one without a hole does not sanctify. Rebbi Simeon says, both are forbidden but neither one sanctifies⁷⁸. If a flower pot with a hole is temporarily put in a vineyard, if it grew by one twohundreth it is forbidden⁷⁹.

footnotes: ⁷⁷ (Mishnah 8 in the separate Mishnah). A flower pot with a hole is part of the earth, Mishnah Demay ⁷⁸ The Halakhah will explain that R. Simeon does not recognize any difference between flower pots with or without holes, except that he treats food grown in a pot with a hole like food grown on a field with respect to the laws of ritual impurities. ⁷⁹ Cf. Mishnah 5:6.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: “The only difference between a flower pot without a hole and one with a hole regards preparation for impurity.” That is for Rebbi Simeon⁸⁰ 95a/b, this is a statement explicitly attributed to R. Simeon., but for the rabbis there are others: A flower pot with a hole sanctifies in a vineyard, one without a hole does not. He who plucks from a flower pot with a hole is guilty, from one without a hole he is free from punishment⁸¹ 10:7. Harvesting on the Sabbath is a criminal offense but one cannot harvest plants that do not grow on the earth. Plucking a plant from a pot without a hole is forbidden but cannot be cause for criminal prosecution. The Mishnah states that R. Simeon excludes prosecution in both cases.. A flower pot with a hole cannot prepare plants, one without a hole prepares⁸² Chapter 2, Note 141. A plant in a pot with hole is a plant in the earth and nothing can make it prepared for impurity at this stage. A plant in a pot without hole is already harvested since it can be plucked on the Sabbath without fear of prosecution; if it is watered, it becomes subject to possible impurity.. Rebbi Yose referred to it as anonymous statement, Rebbi Ḥanina quoted it in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: The Torah extended the purity of growing plants (Lev. 11:37): “If any of their cadavers falls on any sown seed apt to be sown, it is pure⁸³.”

footnotes: ⁸⁰ In the Babli, Šabbat ⁸¹ Mishnah Šabbat ⁸² Food can become impure only after the harvest and only after having been wetted, cf. Demay ⁸³ This explains why R. Simeon agrees with the rabbis that a flower pot with hole is immune from impurity and is not comparable to a pot with hole: The verse insists that anything sown in any way acceptable in agriculture is pure.

It was stated: “The tithes from a flower pot without hole are of practice⁸⁴ (cf. Demay Chap. 4, Note 27) and if it is eaten in error by a non-Cohen, only 100%, not 125%, has to be returned (Lev. 22:14)., its heave does not create dema‘ and one does not owe a fifth for it.” Rebbi Yose asked: May one say “He Who created bread from the earth” for it⁸⁵? Rebbi Jonah asked: Is a gourd considered plucked that one may use it as the cover [of a sukkah]⁸⁶ 1:4). As noted in the preceding paragraph, the majority opinion is that plants growing in a pot without a hole are subject to impurity; the question can be asked only according to R. Simeon.? Rebbi Judah bar Pazi asked: If somebody planted five vines in five pots without holes and arranged them two parallel two and one as tail, can you say this is a vineyard? He may rearrange, does there exist a movable vineyard⁸⁷?

footnotes: ⁸⁴ Rabbinic practice, not biblical commandment. If symbolic heave from such a pot is mixed with profane food, it does not create dema‘ ⁸⁵ What is the appropriate benediction for bread made from flour from grain not grown “on the earth”? ⁸⁶ A hut for the feast of Tabernacles has to be covered by material “not subject to impurity and grown from the earth” (Mishnah Sukkah ⁸⁷ Since the vines can be rearranged, they cannot be considered a vineyard. This is the only question that is answered.

Samuel said, put under any vine. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Mishnah deals within ten [hand-breadths]⁸⁸.

footnotes: ⁸⁸ This starts the discussion of the last sentence in the Mishnah, about a flower pot temporarily put into a vineyard. Samuel said there is a potential for sanctification only if the flower pot is directly under a vine. If the pot is moved from one vine to the other but all the time is under one of them, there is sanctification if the plants in the pot grew by one half of one percent.

If one put five flower pots without holes under one vine, one has the disagreement between Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan⁸⁹: what makes forbidden is not forbidden and what is not forbidden will be forbidden? But if a single pot was placed temporarily under five different vines, everybody agrees that what makes forbidden will be forbidden⁸⁸.

footnotes: ⁸⁹ Halakhah 4, Notes 56 ff. The argument is not as simple as represented here: If the plants in the aggregate of five pots increase by 0.5% then at least in one pot the increase must be ≥ 0.5%. That pot will certainly be forbidden. The only question is whether the five are considered as a unit or not. In the latter case, the grapes will be forbidden but part of the grain will be permitted, still a paradoxical situation. ⁸⁸ This starts the discussion of the last sentence in the Mishnah, about a flower pot temporarily put into a vineyard. Samuel said there is a potential for sanctification only if the flower pot is directly under a vine. If the pot is moved from one vine to the other but all the time is under one of them, there is sanctification if the plants in the pot grew by one half of one percent.