There are certain species of plants which will divide into separate forms because of the difference in the place [where they grow] and the differences in the manner in which the earth is cultivated until they appear as two species. Nevertheless, since they are one species, they are not considered as kilayim with each other.

And there are species of plants that resemble each other and whose form is close to being the same. Nevertheless, because they are two species, it is forbidden [to grow] them together.

What is implied? Lettuce with wavy lettuce,¹ 1:2), the Rambam defines this as "mountain lettuce." The examples cited by the Rambam in this and following halachot are all taken from Kilayim, ch. 1. Our translation is largely dependent on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah and Rav Kappach's notes to that text. endives and wild endives, leek and wild leek, coriander and mountain coriander, mustard and Egyptian mustard, Egyptian squash and squash of ashes,², a pit filled with smoldering ashes (ibid.). are not considered as kilayim with each other. Similarly, wheat and undomesticated wheat, barley and oats, rye and spelt, beans and white peas, fabaceae and leguminosaea,³ white beans with azuki beans, zucchini and cucumbers, cabbage and cauliflower, beets and sorrel are not kilayim with each other. But radishes and Israeli radishes,⁴ mustard and bitter cabbage, Greek squash and Egyptian squash, or and squash of ashes, although they resemble each other are kilayim with each other.

footnotes: ¹ In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Kilayim ² This squash has a bitter taste and is made edible only by putting it in a remetz ³ Two types of wild beans. ⁴ See Halachah 6.

Similarly, with regard to trees, there are species which resemble each other with regard to their leaves or their fruit, but since they are separate species, they are kilayim. What is implied? Apples and crabapples, peaches and almonds, prunes and Arabian jujube, although they resemble each other are kilayim with each other. But apricots and white plums and quince and lavallei are not kilayim with each other.

Similarly, there are other plants and trees which [our Sages] did not classify as kilayim although they are inherently two different species, because the leaves of one resemble the leaves of the other or the fruit of one resembles the fruit of the other very closely to the extent that they appear as different shades of the same species. [The rationale is that] with regard to kilayim we follow the appearance alone.⁵ 3:1). According to his understanding, it is our perception which determines whether one is mixing species or not. Their biological nature is a secondary factor.

footnotes: ⁵ The Rambam also states this principle in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Kilayim

What is implied? Turnips and radishes are not kilayim with each other because their fruits are similar.⁶. Turnips and Israeli radishes are not kilayim with each other, because their leaves resemble each other. But radishes and Israeli radishes are kilayim even though their fruits resembles each other and their leaves resemble each other, because the taste of the fruits are drastically different from each other.

footnotes: ⁶ The Ra'avad differs on the principle explained by the Rambam and considers these species as kilayim

How much is it necessary to separate between two species of plants so that they will not be considered as kilayim [when planting them in the same field]? So that [the two species] will look distinct from each other. If, however, they appear as if they were sown together, this is forbidden.⁷

footnotes: ⁷ The Rambam is stating a general principle with which he introduces the coming halachot.

There are many different measures given with regard to the distance required to make this distinction. Everything depends on the size of the field that is being sown and the proliferation of leaves [the plants have] and the extent to which their branches spread out.

What is implied? If a person had sown a species of grain in his field and he sought to sow another species of grain in another field at its side, he must make a separation the size of the area in which one can sow a quarter of a kav between the two. This is approximately⁸). ten and one fifth cubits by ten and one fifth cubits. [This applies] whether [the space left empty ceases] in the midst [of these fields] or [continues along their entire] side.⁹ who cites the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Kilayim 3:3) as a source. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh cite the Jerusalem Talmud (Kilayim 2:7) which states that if one species surrounds the other on all four sides, such a separation is not sufficient. They say that one could understand the Rambam as alluding to that view. The Aruch HaShulchan 297:32, however, explains that the Rambam differs. If there is less than this space between them, sowing [these crops] are forbidden, but he is not liable for lashes unless they are six handbreadths [or less] close to each other.¹⁰

footnotes: ⁸ I.e., slightly more than that sum (Kessef Mishneh ⁹ Our translation is based on the gloss of the Kessef Mishneh ¹⁰ I.e., unless it is less than the smaller figure, it is not forbidden by Scriptural Law. Nevertheless, as a safeguard, our Sages required an even greater separation.

If his field was sown with vegetables and he desired to sow another species of vegetables - even squash¹¹ - in another field at its side, he must make a separation of a square six handbreadths by six handbreadths between the two whether [the space left empty ceases] in the midst [of these fields] or [continues along their entire] side. If there is less than this space between them, sowing [these crops] are forbidden, but he is not liable for lashes unless they are within a handbreadth of each other.¹² justify the Rambam's approach.

footnotes: ¹¹ Whose leaves spread very far (see Halachah 13). ¹² Although the Ra'avad rules stringently, stating that the measures mentioned in the previous halachah apply in this instance as well, the Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh

If there was grain sown in one of two fields and vegetables or squash sown in the other, one must make a separation the size of the area in which one can sow a quarter of a kav between the two.¹³

footnotes: ¹³ Since there is grain involved, we rule stringently (Radbaz).

When does the need to make a distinction of the size mentioned above apply? Between two fields.¹⁴ 3:4, he states that a small field is 50 cubits by 2 cubits and in Hilchot Shechenim 1:4, he defines a field as a place that is fit to sow nine kabbim. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Bava Basra 1:6), he defines that as being 3750 sq. cubits. If, however, he had sowed vegetables in his field and he desires to sow a row of another species of vegetables at their side,¹⁵ it is sufficient for him to leave a trench six handbreadths long¹⁶ 3:3)]. with its width the same as its depth¹⁷ substantiate the Rambam's understanding. between the row and the field.

footnotes: ¹⁴ Here the Rambam does not define what constitutes a field. In Hilchot Matanot Aniyim ¹⁵ If he wants to sow this row in the middle of the field, he must leave such a trench on either side (Radbaz). ¹⁶ For a separation this size is sufficient to set the row apart as a distinct entity [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Kilayim ¹⁷ The trench must be at least a handbreadth deep.The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's interpretation of this concept, but the Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh

When a field is sown with grain and a person desires to sow a row of vegetables - even squash whose leaves are long and become tangled - in its midst, he must leave a distance of six handbreadths between them.¹⁸ If the leaves of the squash became extended and entered into [the portion where] the grain [was sown] and became entangled with it, he should uproot enough of the grain in front of the squash so that the leaves will not become tangled.¹⁹ Needless to say, if he sowed one row of one species and another row of another species, it is sufficient for there to be one trench between them, as will be explained.²⁰

footnotes: ¹⁸ See Chapter 4, Halachah 3, and notes. ¹⁹ The Radbaz explains that he could also cut off the extensions of the squash plants, but apparently, he would suffer a greater loss from doing that than from uprooting the grain. Hence, the Rambam is simply giving him good advice. ²⁰ The Radbaz mentions that this also refers to the concepts mentioned in the previous halachah. It is, nevertheless, placed here to teach that even though there is grain involved (see Halachah 9), since we are speaking only of one row, there is no need for additional stringency.

If he made an appropriate separation between the two species, but one of the species became draped upon the other one - whether the grain became draped upon other grain, a vegetable upon another vegetable, a vegetable upon grain, or grain upon a vegetable - everything is permitted, for he made a separation of the appropriate measure. [There is one] exception, Greek squash, because it becomes extended very far. Therefore if it becomes draped upon [another species], one should uproot the species in front of it,²¹ 3:11)]. as explained [in the previous halachah].

footnotes: ²¹ Even though there is an appropriate separation, the species appear to be mixed [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Kilayim

If between two species there were [any of the following] - a cistern,²² as referring to an unplowed field. a plowed field left fallow, a stone fence, a path,²³ 3:3). a wooden fence that is ten handbreadths high, a trench that is ten handbreadths deep and four handbreadths wide, a tree whose branches hang to the earth,²⁴ 3:11)]. or a rock that is ten handbreadths high and four [handbreadths] wide - it is permissible to place the one species on one side of [the divider] and the other species on the other side [of the divider]. Since one of the above is separating between them, they appear distinct from each other.

footnotes: ²² Our translation follows the gloss of the Radbaz. Others interpret the term bor ²³ Which is four cubits wide (see Hilchot Matanot Aniyim ²⁴ And thus it appears as a tent [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Kilayim

When is it necessary for there to be such a separation or a divider? When one is sowing [the two species] in his own field. If, however, one person sowed wheat in his field, his colleague is permitted to sow barley in a bordering [field], as [implied by] Leviticus 19:19]: "Do not sow mixed species in your field." The prohibition applies only to sowing mixed species in one's own field. For the Torah does not say: "Mixed species shall not be sown on the earth."²⁵). The Ra'avad does not accept the Rambam's ruling. He accepts the following clause - for it is an explicit mishnah (Kilayim 2:7) - but maintains that the sowing of the two species next to each other are acceptable in that instance, because at the outset, there was a clear distinction. In this instance, by contrast, there is no distinction at the outset, and it appears that a prohibition was violated. The Radbaz justifies the Rambam's ruling, stating that if one is allowed to sow mixed species in his own field, because it appears to be an extension of his colleague's field, certainly, his colleague is allowed to plant a different species in his own field. Moreover, even if one planted barley in his own field next to wheat and extended the barley until it was adjacent to the field of his colleague which was planted with barley, it is permitted. [The rationale is that] the barley in his own field appears to be the end of his colleague's field.²⁶

footnotes: ²⁵ This ruling is an outgrowth of the rationale for the prohibition against mixed species: not to intermingle the different spiritual powers that give energy to the various crops (see the commentary of Rabbenu Bachaye to Leviticus 19:19 . If the properties belong to two different people - even though the land on which the different crops grow are adjacent - the two spiritual mediums of nurture will not be intermingled (Yayin Malchut ²⁶ And thus they will not appear as mixed species to an onlooker.

If his field was planted with wheat and a colleague's field adjoining it was planted with wheat, he is permitted to sow one row of flax at the side of his wheat adjoining his colleague's field.²⁷ [The rationale is that] an observer knows that it is not the common practice to sow only one row of flax and this person is merely testing his field to see if it is fit to plant flax or not. Thus he is sowing the seed with the intent of destroying it.²⁸ does not apply. Therefore,²⁹ it is forbidden to sow another species³⁰ between these two fields³¹. The version in the standard printed text is slightly different. that are planted with one species until he makes a distinction [between the two species] within his own property.

footnotes: ²⁷ Despite the fact that the two fields appear to be one continuous field of wheat, planting the one row of flax is permitted for the rationale explained by the Rambam (Radbaz). ²⁸ I.e., he is not intending to reap any benefit from planting this flax. For this reason, the prohibition against kilayim ²⁹ I.e., since the reason for the leniency is that everyone can see that he has no benefit from the row of flax, when that rationale does not apply, the leniency is not granted. ³⁰ I.e., a species other than flax that people might commonly sow only one row of. ³¹ Our text is based on authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah

When a person's field and a colleague's field were sown with two [different] types of grain,³² he should not sow even one row of mustard seed or safflower seed, because it is customary to sow one row of these.³³ 3:11. If, however, there were two fields planted with different species of vegetables, it is permitted to sow mustard seed or safflower seed between them. For it is permitted to bring any species close to mustard seed or safflower seed with the exception of grain.³⁴ 2:8), the Rambam writes the direct opposite that mustard seed and safflower seed have a harmful effect on grain, but not on other crops. Rav Yosef Corcus notes that from the previous halachah, one might think that it is permitted to plant only a row of flax, but not of other species, because only flax is planted as an experiment. And from this halachah, one might think only mustard seed and safflower seed are forbidden, for otherwise, there would be no reason to single them out individually, but other species are permitted. In resolution, he explains that here the emphasis is on mustard seed and flax seed individually. Since they are permitted next to other species, one might think that they are also permitted next to grain. Hence, it is necessary to emphasize that this is not so. [There is a stringency in the latter instance, because the mustard seed or safflower seed] do not have a harmful effect on [grain]. Similarly, if a corner [of a portion] of one's field [sown] with one species touches a block [of the field sown] with another species, it is permitted, because they appear separate from each other.³⁵ Needless to say, if the corner [of a portion of one's field sown] with one species touches a corner [of the field sown] with another species, it is permitted without setting them apart or making a distinction as we explained,³⁶ because it appears that it is the end of one field that touched the end of another field.

footnotes: ³² Needless to say, this applies when the fields are sown with the same species (Radbaz). ³³ I.e., these are crops for which there is a benefit in sowing a single row. Hence, in contrast to the flax mentioned in the previous halachah, a prohibition exists.The commentaries note that the Rambam's statements here appear to contradict his statement in Chapter 1, Halachah 9, in which he states that it is customary to sow entire fields of mustard seed. They are, however, reinforced by his statements in Hilchot Matnot Aniyim ³⁴ Since mustard seed and safflower seed have a harmful effect on other crops, there is no prohibition. Significantly, in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Kilayim ³⁵ Even though they are adjacent, the manner in which they are planted makes a clear distinction. ³⁶ In Halachah 16.