diff --git "a/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Zeraim/English Explanation of Mishnah Kilayim/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json" "b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Zeraim/English Explanation of Mishnah Kilayim/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json" new file mode 100644--- /dev/null +++ "b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Zeraim/English Explanation of Mishnah Kilayim/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json" @@ -0,0 +1,500 @@ +{ + "language": "en", + "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Kilayim", + "versionSource": "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/", + "versionTitle": "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "status": "locked", + "license": "CC-BY", + "shortVersionTitle": "Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "actualLanguage": "en", + "languageFamilyName": "english", + "isBaseText": true, + "isSource": true, + "isPrimary": true, + "direction": "ltr", + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה כלאים", + "categories": [ + "Mishnah", + "Modern Commentary on Mishnah", + "English Explanation of Mishnah", + "Seder Zeraim" + ], + "text": { + "Introduction": [], + "": [ + [ + [ + "Introduction to Kilayim
The word “kilayim” means mixture, either a mixture of seeds, plants, cross-bred animals or even cross-yoked animals. The Torah twice prohibits kilayim.", + "Leviticus 19:19
You shall not let your cattle mate with a different kind (kilayim); you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed (kilayim); you shall not put on cloth from a mixture of two kinds of material (kilayim shatnez).", + "Deuteronomy 22:9-11
You shall not sow your vineyard with a second kind of seed (kilayim), else the crop – from the seed you have sown – and the yield of the vineyard may not be used. You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together. You shall not wear cloth combining wool and linen (shatnez).", + "The rabbis interpreted “You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed” to mean that planting two different kinds of seed in a field was forbidden and that grafting one type of plant onto another was also forbidden. “You shall not sow your vineyard with a second kind of seed” meant that one could not plant either grains or vegetables in a vineyard. ", + "Planting two different kinds of seeds in one field is only prohibited if the seeds are mixed up together. If they are planted separately and there is a divider, one can plant two different kinds of seed in one field.", + "In total there are four types of kilayim: 1) kilayim of the vineyard; 2) kilayim of mixed seeds in a field—this prohibition includes a prohibition of grafting together different trees; 3) cross-breeding animals; 4) yoking two different types of animals together. Our tractate will discuss all four different types. ", + "Good luck learning Tractate Kilayim! ", + "Wheat and zunin do not constitute kilayim one with the other.
Barley and oats, spelt and rye, or beans and sapir (a type of, or purkdan and tofah (two similar types of, or white beans and kidney beans, do not constitute kilayim one with the other.
Our mishnah teaches that if two types of seeds, either grains or beans, are very similar to one another then they are not “kilayim” and one can plant a field with both of them mixed. Kilayim is prohibited only in cases of two distinct species of seed; if the two are almost interchangeable, then there is no prohibition. The mishnah therefore lists pairs of seeds that are not kilayim with each other. Since the mishnah’s meaning is quite simple, I have refrained from commenting below.
One problem in interpreting and translating this mishnah is that it is difficult to identify many of the species mentioned. Albeck provides various Latin terms, and all commentators attempt to identify the species, but some of their meanings have probably been lost. To avoid this problem, I have transliterated some of the terms rather than translate them. Thus “zunin” instead of “Cephalaria Syriaca” or “sapir” instead of “Vicia Narbonensis.” I realize that this may disappoint the hard-core botanists among you, but I can’t write these Latin terms and pretend I know what they are. The most important thing to know is that in each pair, the two species are very similar. So while I might not know what “zunin” is, I know it is similar to wheat." + ], + [ + "Cucumbers and melons do not constitute kilayim one with the other.
Rabbi Judah said they do constitute kilayim.
Lettuce and wild lettuce, endives and wild endives, leek and wild leek, coriander and wild coriander, or mustard and Egyptian mustard, Egyptian gourd and the bitter gourd, or Egyptian beans and carob shaped beans do not constitute kilayim one with the other.
This mishnah continues listing pairs of seeds that do not constitute kilayim one with the other. While this admittedly may not be the most exciting topic of study, we should recognize how important these laws would have been to the farmers observing them. A farmer simply had to know what could and what could not be grown together. Growing the wrong things together may have made his produce forbidden to eat, causing him great financial loss. We should also note that by allowing similar seeds to grow together, the laws were much easier than the might have otherwise have been interpreted.
Again, there is not much to explain on this mishnah so I have refrained from commenting." + ], + [ + "Turnips and the cabbage turnip, cabbage and cauliflower, beet and rumex do not constitute kilayim one with the other. Rabbi Akiva added: garlic and small wild garlic, onion and small wild onion, lupine and wild lupine do not constitute kilayim one with the other.
Again, the mishnah deals with pairs of seeds that may be grown together." + ], + [ + "As for trees: the pear and the crustumenian pear, the medlar and azarolus, do not constitute kilayim one with the other.
The apple and the crab-apple, or the peach and almond, or the jujube and rimin, even though they are similar one to the other, they nevertheless constitute kilayim one with the other.
This mishnah begins to deal with kilayim in trees, meaning which trees may not be grafted one onto the other. Note that this section does not deal with planting, because there is no prohibition of planting different trees in juxtaposition. The only prohibition is grafting.
The first section of the mishnah continues to list trees that are not kilayim one with the other. That is, they are nearly the same species. In the second section, the mishnah begins to list trees that are indeed kilayim with one another. Although they look similar and are in some ways similar, they are distinct enough that one cannot graft them together." + ], + [ + "The radish and the cabbage turnip, mustard and charlock mustard, Greek gourd with Egyptian gourd or [Greek gourd] with bitter gourd, even though they are similar one to the other, are nevertheless kilayim one with the other.
This mishnah returns to discussing kilayim in vegetables. In the earlier mishnayot (1-3) the mishnah listed vegetables that were similar enough not to be kilayim one with the other, and therefore permitted to plant together. In today’s mishnah we learn of vegetables that are similar but not similar enough and therefore are kilayim one with the other.
Note that the first five mishnayot form a chiastic structure, meaning an x-like literary structure (usually a-b-b-a, or perhaps a-b-c-b-a). We began with vegetables that are not kilayim (A1), continued with trees that are not kilayim (B1), then trees that are kilayim (B2) and finally vegetables that are kilayim (A2). This is a typical structure in rabbinic literature." + ], + [ + "A wolf and a dog, a wild dog and a fox, a goat and a deer, a gazelle and a ewe-lamb, a horse and a mule, or a mule and a donkey, a donkey and a wild donkey, even though they are similar one to the other, constitute nevertheless, kilayim one with the other.
This is the final mishnah which lists species that are close to one another and yet nevertheless still constitute kilayim. This time the mishnah deals with animals, which means that they may not be cross-bred, nor may they be yoked together or put together to perform any labor. The mishnah will discuss these prohibitions in greater depth in chapter 8:1-2.
I realize that some of these species cannot successfully cross-breed, and some are not domesticated and therefore don’t perform work. It seems that the rabbis were theoretically interested in categorizing animals, even if there was no likely halakhic ramification. This may be as close as the mishnah gets to a “zoological” work, such as may have been written by ancient scientists like Aristotle." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah discusses the prohibition of grafting.", + "They may not graft from one tree to another, or from one vegetable to another, or from a tree to a vegetable, or from a vegetable to a tree. This section is in some ways a continuation of mishnayot four and five. The prohibition of grafting is also a prohibition of mixing different kinds of trees or vegetables two different kinds are prohibited. Assumedly, the mishnah relies on the lists already found above trees and vegetables that can be grown together, can also be grafted.", + "Rabbi Judah permits it from a vegetable to a tree. Rabbi Judah allows one to graft from a vegetable onto a tree (I don’t really know if this works). According to the Tosefta, he also allows from a tree onto a vegetable. The commentators explain that when a vegetable and tree are grafted together, a new species is not formed, even though they the plant grafted onto the mother plant benefits. According to Rabbi Judah, the Torah prohibits the formation of a new species, but does not prohibit grafting when new species will not be formed. The rabbis are stricter and rule that any grafting of different species is prohibited." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah forbids certain practices because they are considered grafting or close enough to it. These examples demonstrate cases in which a person might have “grafted” a vegetable onto a tree, a tree onto a vegetable or one vegetable onto another.\nI should note that “vegetable” in rabbinic literature means anything that is not a tree, grain or bean. Thus herbs are “vegetables.”", + "They may not plant vegetables in a trunk of a sycamore tree. It seems that people may have planted vegetables in the trunks of sycamore trees that had been cut down. Assumedly, the vegetables would be able to derive nutrients from the decomposing wood. Alas, while this might be a good idea, it is prohibited because of kilayim.", + "They may not graft rue on white cassia, since that is [grafting] a vegetable on a tree. A rue is a shrub, which falls in the vegetable family (according to rabbinic classification, of course) and a white cassia is a tree. Thus grafting the two together is prohibited.", + "They may not plant a young fig-shoot in sea squill so that it might provide shade for it. The sea squill is a bulbous plant whose roots grow deep. It seems that planting the young fig in the sea squill would help cool it by providing shade. However, this is kilayim and is therefore prohibited.", + "They may not insert a vine branch into a melon, in order that the latter might shoot its moisture to the former, since that is [grafting] a tree on a vegetable. A vine is considered a tree and a melon is a vegetable. Hence it is forbidden to stick the vine into the melon to use it as a source of moisture.", + "They may not place gourd seed into anchusa for the purpose of preserving it (the gourd, since that is [grafting] a vegetable on another vegetable. It seems that the moisture of the anchusa plant could be used to preserve gourd seed. Our mishnah teaches that although the intent here is not to actually graft one plant on another but just to preserve them, it is still forbidden due to kilayim, in this case one vegetable with another." + ], + [ + "One who buries turnips or radishes beneath a vine, if some of their leaves are uncovered, he need not have fear [of having transgressed] kilayim, or the sabbatical year, or tithes and they may also be pulled up on Shabbat. The first section deals with someone who buries turnips or radishes in the ground not so that they will take root but so that they will stay cool. This was an ancient form of refrigeration. The mishnah rules that as long as some of their leaves are still exposed, we don’t consider the turnips or radishes to have been planted. Thus the person who buried them does not have to worry about having transgressed the laws of kilayim, or the prohibition of planting on the sabbatical year. If the plant grew more in the ground then he doesn’t have to tithe for the extra growth. On Shabbat he can take them out of the ground, and this is not considered “harvesting” because they weren’t really attached to the ground.", + "One who plants a [grain of] wheat and [a grain of] barley at one time, behold this is kilayim. According to the first opinion in the mishnah, planting two different grains together is already a violation of the laws of kilayim.", + "Rabbi Judah says: it is not kilayim unless there are two grains of wheat and two grains of barley, or one grain of wheat and two grains of barley, or a grain of wheat, a grain of barley and a grain of spelt. In contrast, Rabbi Judah holds that it is not a prohibition unless he plants three grains, two of one kind and one of another, or three different kinds." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah deals with a seah (=6 kav) in which a quarter of a kav (1/24 of the seah) of at least one different species of seed has been mixed. If the other species is at least 1/24 of the main species, it is forbidden to plant this mixture. However, if there is less than 1/24 of the other seed, it is permitted to plant the mixture and this is not kilayim. In our mishnah we learn what the person can do to remedy a mixture of seeds that has more than 1/24 of the other species.", + "Any seah which contains a quarter [of a kav] of a different species, one should reduce [its proportion of the latter] According to the first opinion in the mishnah, if the other seed is more than 1/24 all he has to do is reduce the proportion, either by adding more of the dominant seed or reducing the minority seed.", + "Rabbi Yose says: one should pick [it all out]. Rabbi Yose is stricter and holds that he has to pick out all of the minority seed before he can plant. Since the mixture was originally prohibited, it is not sufficient to just adjust the proportion. However, Rabbi Yose agrees that if the mixture was originally less than 1/24 he can plant it without concern for kilayim.", + "Whether it consists of one species or of two species. The above rules apply whether or not there were one or two or more minority seeds. The first opinion still holds that he can adjust the proportion so that there are less than 1/24 of the minority seeds, and Rabbi Yose still holds that he must pick them all out.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: they said this only if it consists of one species. Rabbi Shimon limits the leniency in section one to a case where there was only one minority species. If there were two different minority seeds, he must remove them all before he plants.", + "But the sages say: anything which is kilayim, in a seah [it adds up] in making up the quarter. The sages add a new rule. If two species are kilayim with each other, such as barley and lentils, then when they are mixed in with a dominant seed such as wheat, the barley and lentils add up and if they are together more than 1/24 of the total amount, the mixture must either be reduced or the minority seeds removed. However, if the species are not kilayim with each other, such as barley and oats they do not add up, because oats is not kilayim with barley (see mishnah one)." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday’s mishnah is a direct continuation of yesterday’s mishnah. In sections two and three it brings up some exceptions to the general rule that 1/24 of a different seed(s) will forbid a mixture.", + "To what does this refer? To [an mixture of] grain [occurring] with [different] grain, or pulse with [different] pulse, to grain with pulse, and to pulse with grain. The rule in yesterday’s mishnah only applies to a case where grains and pulse (beans) became mixed up. In section two we will see that the rule for garden seeds is different.", + "However they stated: Seeds from a garden which are not eaten, they add up [with other seeds to form an amount sufficient to prohibit the sowing of a seah] when there is 1/24 of the quantity [of such seed] that is necessary to sow a bet seah. “However they stated” implies that there is a rule in this section that deviates from the normal rule above. The mishnah refers here to inedible seeds such as garlic seeds or turnip seeds. If there is in a mixture 1/24 of these seeds in the amount of seeds of grain needed to plant a bet seah (a plot of land that can grow a seah of produce, about 2500 square cubits), but in this size field the seeds would produce much less than a seah, such as a kav, then 1/24 of a kav of these seeds would prohibit a mixture of another seah of other produce (remember grain prohibits if there is 1/6 of a kav). In other words, since these seeds, if they were grain seeds, would produce a much smaller amount of product if they were planted in a field that could grow a seah of produce, they prohibit mixtures at 1/24 of the level of the amount of product that they would produce, in this case 1/24 of a kav.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: just as they ruled to be stringent so too they ruled to be lenient flax [mixed in with] produce, combines when there is 1/24 of the quantity [of such seed] that is necessary to sow a bet seah. In the previous section we saw a stringency with regard to garden seeds that are not eaten. Since these seeds produce much less product, the laws are more stringent in their prohibiting a mixture with other produce, such as grain. In contrast, when an equal amount of flax seed is planted in a plot of land used to produce a seah of grain, it will produce three seahs of flax (three times the amount of grain). Therefore, the law is more lenient with them and there will need to be ¾ of a kav of flax seeds mixed in with other seeds before they become prohibited. As a general rule we could summarize that if an amount of seed produces less final product, it will be more potent in prohibiting mixtures, but if it produces more final product, it will be less potent in prohibiting mixtures." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with a person who had planted his field with wheat and then changed his mind and decided that he wanted to plant barley. What must he do so that he can plant barley?\nNote that I have explained this mishnah according to Albeck. There are other quite different explanations.", + "If one’s field was sown with wheat, and he changed his mind and decided to sow it with barley, he must wait until it [the wheat] rots. Before he plants the barley, he must wait for the wheat seed to start to rot underneath the soil, meaning until it stops being “seed”. According to the Tosefta, this takes three days in moist ground and more than that in dry ground. After the wheat has rotted, he can plant barley and according to the mishnah the wheat won’t grow.", + "He turns [the soil] and then he may sow [the barley], if it [the wheat] had already grown. If the wheat has started to sprout, he must first overturn the soil and then he may plant the barley.", + "He should not say: “I shall [first] sow [the barley] and, then turn [the soil]” rather he must first turn [the soil] and then sow. He shouldn’t say that he is going to first sow the barley and then turn over the soil because this would be prohibited. Rather what he must do is first overturn the soil and then he can plant the barley.", + "How much must he plow [when overturning the soil]? Like the furrows [that are plowed after the [first] rainy season. The mishnah now turns its attention to how much one must plow for it to be considered as if he had properly turned the soil. The first opinion is that he must plow furrows like those that are plowed after the first rainy season. These furrows are spread apart one from the other, meaning the mishnah is rather lenient. He need not overturn all the soil.", + "Abba Shaul says: [one should plow] so that one does not leave [unplowed] as much [ground] as holds a quarter [kav] to a bet seah. Abba Shaul holds that he must make sure that no more than ¼ kav within a bet seah (a field large enough to grow a seah of wheat) is left unturned. Since there are six kav to a seah, this means that he must not leave more than 1/24 unturned. Abba Shaul is clearly stricter than the anonymous opinion in section four." + ], + [ + "[His field was] sown [with grain, or pulse, or garden-seed], and he changed his mind and decided to plant it [with vines], he may not say: “First I shall plant [the vines] and then turn [the soil],” but he must [first] turn [the soil] and then he may plant [the vines].
[If it was] ‘planted’ [with vines] and he changed his mind and decided to seed [with grain, pulse or garden-seed], he may not say: “First I shall sow [the grain etc.] and then I uproot [the vines],” but he must [first] uproot [the vines] and then he may sow [the grain etc.]
If he wants, he may cut down [the vines] to less than a handbreadth [above ground], and then he may sow [the grain] and later, he uproots [the vines].
This mishnah continues to deal with a situation in which a person has planted his field with one type of seed and then changes his mind and wishes to plant it with another.
Sections one and two: These two sections are both basically the same as the last section of yesterday’s mishnah. What he must do is first get rid of that which he had already planted if he planted seeds he must turn the soil and if he planted grape vines he must uproot them and then he can plant the new vines or sow the new seed.
Section three: If he doesn’t want to totally uproot the vines before he sows the seed he may cut the vine shoots down to less than a handbreadth’s height, sow the seed and then uproot at a later date. When the shoots are less than a handbreadth tall they are considered as if they are not really vine shoots." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with a field in which other species grew on their own and whether or not this is a case of kilayim.", + "His field was sown cumin or with arum, he must not sow on top of them, since they produce crops only after three years. Cumin and arum (a type of onion) only sprout up after three years. Therefore if he has already sown his field with one of these types of seed, he shouldn’t plant something else there because eventually the cumin or arum will sprout up.", + "[A field of] grain among which sprang up some aftergrowth woad, alternatively an area of threshing-floors in which many species sprang up, alternatively [a field of] clover among which grew up a number of species of herbs, he is not obliged to weed them out. This section mentions a situation in which weeds have sprouted up among an area where he planted with a certain species or on a threshing floor, where they thresh grain. He is not obligated to uproot the weeds because he didn’t want them to be there. We learn here that these are not treated like cases of kilayim because he didn’t plant two types of seeds together, nor was he even desirous of their coexistence.", + "But if he weeded or cut down the weeds, they say to him: “Uproot it all, except for one species.” If he weeded or cut down some of the weeds, the court now must force him to uproot the rest of the weeds because by getting rid of some of them, he has revealed that he wishes to keep there the ones that he didn’t remove. Since he wants to keep them, they cause a case of kilayim in the field." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with a person who wants to plant his field in long rows, each row containing a different species. The mishnah describes how he might do this while avoiding the problem of kilayim.", + "One who wants to lay out his field in long straight rows each sown with a different species:
Bet Shammai says: three furrows of newly broken land. According to Bet Shammai he has to separate these rows with a gap the size of three furrows which are dug on newly planted land. When he separates the rows by this amount each row is considered to be its own field, since they are recognizably distinct. Alternatively, others interpret Bet Shammai to mean that each row must be of this width. When the rows are of this size, each is considered a separate field and hence, with even a small separation between the different rows, it will be recognizable that each row is a separate field.", + "But Bet Hillel says: the width of a Sharon yoke. According to Bet Hillel, the rows must be separated by the width of the size of the yoke used in Sharon, the lowlands inside the coast of Israel. According to the other understanding, the rows must be of this width.", + "And the words of these are close to the words of these. The anonymous mishnah notes that there is not that great of a difference between the sizes of the furrows separating the rows (or the size of the rows) mentioned by Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah begins to discuss the issue of adjacent fields planted with different types of species. In the previous mishnah we learned that there must be a separation between fields or rows planted with different species. In today’s mishnah we learn that sometimes it is okay to have fields of different species adjacent to one another.\nWe should note that according to the rabbis kilayim is only prohibited from the Torah (deoraita) when one mixes seed in one’s hand and sows them together. Areas with different species that are adjacent to one another are only prohibited by the rabbis (derabanan) because this looks like kilayim. Under certain circumstances, when it doesn’t look like kilayim, this is permitted.", + "If the point of an angle of a wheat [field] overlaps into a barley [field], it is permitted because it looks like the end of his field. In this case, a point of an angle of a field planted with wheat enters into, or according to other interpretations, is adjacent to, a field planted with barley. Imagine a triangular field, where one of the corners is next to a square field. Since it looks like the angle is the end of the wheat field, there is no problem of kilayim here.", + "If his [field] is of wheat, and his neighbor’s is of another species, he may sow [next to the border] some of the same species [as that of his neighbor]. If his field was of wheat and his neighbor had a field of another species such as barley, he may sow barley next to his neighbor’s field. This doesn’t look like kilayim in his own field, because the row of barley looks like part of his neighbor’s field.", + "If his field was of wheat and that of his neighbor’s was of wheat, he may sow next to him a row of flax, but not a row of any other species. Rabbi Shimon says: it is all the same whether he sows flax or any other species. Rabbi Yose said: even in the middle of one's field it is permitted to check one’s field with a row of flax. In this case both his field and his neighbor’s field are of wheat. He is allowed to sow one row of flax between the two fields. Everyone knows that one row of flax is so negligible that no one would plant in this manner in order to grow flax for use. Rather it is readily apparent that the only reason to plant the flax was to check the fertility of his field, whether in the future his field is appropriate for sowing flax. Since every one knows that his purpose in planting this furrow was not for the produce, it does not look like kilayim. According to Rabbi Shimon it doesn’t make a difference what type of seed the single row consists of in all cases it is recognizable that he is only planting in order to see if his field can grow this type of species. It seems that according to Rabbi Shimon people don’t plant rows of single species in order to grow the produce, rather just to check the fecundity of the field. Rabbi Yose holds that one may do so even within one’s own field. That is, one can plant one row of flax in the middle of a wheat field (or any other type of field), because it is apparent that the row of flax was put there only in order to check the field, whether it can sustain flax. Anyone seeing such a set up will understand that this is not kilayim." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn yesterday’s mishnah we learned that it is permitted to plant one row of flax next to a field of grain. In today’s mishnah we learn that one is not allowed to do so with mustard or safflower.", + "They may not sow mustard or safflower close to a field of grain, but they may sow mustard or safflower close to a vegetable field. Mustard and safflower are dangerous to a vegetable field and therefore the owner will eventually uproot them. Since this is not a beneficial arrangement, one is allowed to sow them there. However, since these seeds are not damaging to grain, he may not sow even a single row next to a grain field.", + "And they may sow close to fallow land or to plowed land, or to a wall made with loose stones, or to a path, or to a fence ten handbreadths high, or to a trench ten [handbreadths] deep and four wide, or to a tree forming a tent over the ground, or to a rock ten [handbreadths] high and four wide. In this section of the mishnah we learn that if there is a break between one field and another, he can plant one species next to a different species. For instance, if there was fallow land or plowed land separating two fields, he can plant two different species next to each other. A wall, even if its stones are only loosely piled on top of each other, a path, fences and ditches that are ten handbreadths high or deep and four handbreadths wide, also all serve as separators, preventing a problem of kilayim. The tree which forms a tent over the ground refers to a tree whose branches lie low to the ground. If one species is planted under the branches, he can plant another species outside of the branches, because the branches themselves serve to separate the two species. Finally, a rock ten handbreadths high and four wide also serves as a separator." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah teaches how many different species of seed one might sow within one field the size of a bet seah (a field large enough to produce a seah’s worth of grain).", + "One who wishes to make his field into square plots [each sown] with a different species, he should divide it into twenty-four square plots for a bet seah, a square plot per bet rova, and he may then sow in each whatever species he wants. A bet seah is fifty cubits by fifty cubits, 2500 square cubits. If you were to divide this size field into twenty-four plots, each being able to contain a quarter of a rova (a rova is 1/6 of a seah), each plot would be 104 1/6 square cubits, 10.2 x 10.2. Each of these plots is considered a separate field and therefore he can plant whatever seed he wants in each. Since they are distinct plots and the whole field is set up this way, it is clear to anyone who sees the field that this is not kilayim.", + "If there is one square plot or two [inside his field], he may sow them with mustard, but if there are three he may not sow them with mustard, since it looks like a field of mustard, the words of Rabbi Meir. The mishnah now refers to a case where there are a limited number of plots within a field planted with a single species. Rabbi Meir says that one can plant one or two plots of mustard within the field and this still doesn’t look like kilayim. However, if he plants three plots of mustard this looks like a field of mustard mixed in with a field of grain, and there is a problem of looking like kilayim. This is a problem specifically with mustard because people don’t typically plant this much mustard within a grain field. If it was another species, he could plant more plots and they wouldn’t look like a full field of one species intermingled with another.", + "But the sages say: nine square plots are permitted, ten are forbidden. The sages rule more leniently than Rabbi Meir, allowing one to plant up to nine plots of a different species within a field the size of a bet seah. However, ten square plots looks like a field, and is therefore prohibited. Nine plots can be arranged in the following way so that each plot does not come into contact with each other: Note that according to other opinions, there are other ways to draw this. In any case, what is most important is that since no two plots of one species are adjacent to each other, it doesn’t look like two different kinds of fields intermingled.", + "Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: even though the whole of his field is a bet-kor, he may not make within it more than one square plot. A bet-kor, which is 75,000 square cubits, is much larger than a bet-seah, which is only 2500 square cubits. Nevertheless, Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says that no more than one plot of a different species may be planted there. This explanation, while if fits the words, is hard to understand. Therefore, Albeck explains that Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov looks at the whole field as one square plot, meaning that even in a gigantic field such as a bet-kor, one can sow only one type of seed. He doesn’t allow any plots of another species." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe first part of our mishnah is a continuation of yesterday’s mishnah. Yesterday we learned that if a person wishes to sow his field with different species he must leave an empty plot in between the sown plots. The empty plot must be the size of a bet rova (1/24 the size of a bet seah). In our mishnah we learn that any plot which can’t be used for sowing seed serves as a break between the different species, even if the plot is not completely empty.\nThe second half of our mishnah teaches how far one must separate different species in order that they shouldn’t look like kilayim.", + "Whatever there is within a bet rova [which separates different species] is included in the area of a bet rova: the space which vine roots consume, a grave, a rock, [all] count in the measure of a bet rova. If there is something within the bet rova plot that prevents one from sowing there, the bet rova still counts as an empty plot serving to separate the two different species. The first object is the space around a vine that the vine’s roots take up. Thus if there is a plot planted with a vine, the vine’s roots, which are halakhically considered to take up six handbreadths (we will return to this subject in 3:7), and these six handbreadths count toward the empty bet rova. So too a grave and a rock all count towards the empty space needed to separate between the different species, even though it is obviously impossible to plant on a grave or on a rock.", + "[One who wants to sow one type of] grain [in a field of another type] of grain the measure is a bet rova. One who wants to plant one type of grain in a field of another type of grain must distance the two one bet rova from each other. According to the Rambam this must be a square meaning 10 1/5 cubits by 10 1/5 cubits.", + "Vegetables within [a field of other] vegetables the measure is six handbreadths. Vegetables are planted in smaller plots, hence one can plant them closer to each other (imagine the tomato or cucumber garden my Dad has behind his house they’re very good, so if you’re ever in Margate, NJ in the summer..). The distance is only six handbreadths square, far smaller than that for grain.", + "Vegetables within [a field of] grain, or grain within [a field of] vegetables the measure is a bet rova. Rabbi Eliezer says: vegetables in [a field of] grain the measure is six handbreadths. The mishnah now deals with cases where a person wants to put grain in a field of vegetables, or vice versa. According to the first opinion, the two species must be kept at a distance of a bet rova, since one is grain. According to Rabbi Eliezer, he must distance them only six handbreadths, the measure for distancing vegetables." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah discusses whether stalks of one species that lean over stalks of another species constitutes kilayim.", + "Stalks of grain which are leaning over other stalks of grain, or vegetable [plants] on other [] vegetable plants, or stalks of grain over vegetables plants or vegetable plants over stalks of grain, all this is permitted, except in the case of the Greek gourd. In the case referred to in this mishnah, the person properly distanced the different species one from the other. If the stalks grew or the vegetable plants grew and began to hang over the other species, this does not constitute kilayim, since he distanced them properly. The only except is the Greek gourd, which evidently can significantly tangle itself up with other species that are growing near it. Since this will really look like kilayim, he must uproot either the gourd or the other species growing near it.", + "Rabbi Meir says: also in the case of the cucumber or Egyptian beans. But I recognize their words [as more acceptable] than mine. Rabbi Meir adds two other species that also entangle themselves up with other species growing near them. However, in the end, Rabbi Meir admits that the rabbis’ limiting this to the Greek gourd is more acceptable than his extending it to the cucumber and Egyptian beans. One might ask: if he tends to agree with the other rabbis, then why does he still make his statement at all? The answer, according to commentators, is that he received his opinion from his teachers, and although he did not actually agree with this opinion, he still stated it in order that it should be preserved for future generations." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction In previous mishnayot we learned that vegetables must be separated by a space of six handbreadths to prevent a problem of kilayim. In today’s mishnah we learn that this is only so in a case of a field of vegetables. When it comes to smaller furrows, the rabbis were more lenient and allowed one to distance them by a measure of only 1 ½ handbreadths, the amount of land the rabbis thought that each vegetable used to derive nutrients. To understand this mishnah we must also recall that if the point of one area planted with one species ends at the beginning of another species, this is permitted. I have tried to make a drawing below to illustrate this.

In this drawing the triangle can be of one species and the rectangle of another.", + "A furrow of vegetables measuring six handbreadths by six handbreadths: it is permitted to sow in it five [different] types of seeds--four [species], one on [each of] the four sides of the bed, and one in the middle. I have drawn an approximation of what this furrow will look like below:

I don’t know how to draw half-filled boxes, so pretend that all boxes marked with “a” are filled with a triangle, such that only a point of this triangle is in contact with the planted area on the outside. In this way one can plant four different species on the outside and still maximize his planting on the inside.", + "If it had a border one handbreadth high, one may sow in it thirteen [different species] three on every border, and one in the middle. If there is a border that is one handbreadth high, and one handbreadth wide, it turns out that the square is eight handbreadths by eight handbreadths. He can now sow thirteen different seeds, as you can see in the following drawing:

Again, imagine that the “a” boxes are filled to make triangles, coming to a point at their contact with the rows on the outside. In this way, he can sow thirteen different seeds, twelve on the outside rows, and a large patch in the middle. Rabbi Judah below disagrees with this and holds that one can plant six in the middle. This could be accomplished by drawing six diamonds in the middle, so that only the angles of the triangles touch the edges of the outside squares, like this.

Each letter forms a diamond (sorry that I’m not cable of drawing this.) In this way the only the angles of the diamonds touch the squares.", + "It is prohibited to plant a turnip head in the border since that would fill it [completely]. Rabbi Judah said: [it is permitted to sow] six [species] in the middle. Turnip plants produce many leaves. Therefore if they are planted outside, it will look like they have mixed in with the other species and this is prohibited." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah is a direct continuation of yesterday’s mishnah.", + "They may not sow different species of seeds in one bed, but they may sow different species of vegetables in one bed. In yesterday’s mishnah we learned that in some cases it is permitted to plant five different species in one furrow, six handbreadths by six handbreadths. Our mishnah says that this refers only to vegetables, because it is customary to plant small patches of vegetables. However, it does not apply to seeds, because it is customary to plant them in larger areas, and therefore planting many seeds in one small patch is forbidden because it looks too much like kilayim.", + "Mustard and small polished peas are a species of seed; large peas are a species of vegetable. The mishnah identifies mustard and a certain small species of peas as being species of seeds, whereas it identifies larger peas as being a species of vegetable.", + "If a border was originally a handbreadth high and then it fell in height, it remains valid, since it was valid at the beginning. If the border wall was originally high enough to plant on top of it twelve species and then it started to deteriorate, he does not have to uproot all of the seeds which he planted there, since he planted them with permission.", + "A furrow or water channel which are a handbreadth deep, it is permitted to sow three different species of vegetables, one on one side, one on the other side, and one in the middle. If there is a furrow or water channel that is one handbreadth deep he can plant one species on each side of the furrow, and one species in the middle, because the depth is considered a separation." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with potential problems of kilayim in vegetable fields. Note that I have explained this mishnah according to Albeck’s commentary.", + "If the point of an angle of a vegetable field overlaps into a field of another vegetable, it is permitted because it looks like the end of his field. This section is the same as section one of mishnah 2:7. I am copying my commentary here so that you don’t have to go back and look at it: In this case, a point of an angle of a field planted with one type of vegetable enters into, or according to other interpretations, is adjacent to, a field planted with a different type of vegetable. Imagine a triangular field, where one of the corners is next to a square field. Since it looks like the angle is the end of one of the vegetable fields, there is no problem of kilayim here.", + "His field was sown with a certain vegetable and he wants to plant in it a row of another vegetable: Rabbi Ishmael says: [he may do so] as long as a furrow runs through from one end of the field to the other. Rabbi Akiva says: [as long as] it is six handbreadths long and fully as wide. Rabbi Judah says: [as long as] the width is the full width of a footstep. All three sages in this mishnah allow one to plant one row of a different species of vegetable within a field of another species of vegetable. The three sages differ with regard to how long this row has to be. Rabbi Ishmael says that the row has to run the whole distance of the field, essentially dividing the field in half. This turns the row of a different vegetable into its own field, in which case there is no problem of kilayim. Rabbi Akiva says that the row need not go the entire distance of the field. His condition is that the row must be six handbreadths wide and as wide below as it is above. That is to say the sides of the furrow don’t slant but are rather dug straight down. Rabbi Judah says that the width need only be as wide as a footstep. In the Talmud this is explained to be one handbreadth. Rabbi Judah agrees with Rabbi Akiva that the furrow need not run the whole length of the field." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with a person who wishes to plant several types of vegetables within one field.", + "Planting two rows of cucumbers, two rows of gourds, and two rows of Egyptian beans is permitted. When one plants two rows of cucumbers it looks like a separate field. Therefore, one can plant next to it two more rows of gourds and then two more rows of Egyptian beans. There is no need for any minimum length of the rows, as there was in yesterday’s mishnah, because each row looks like its own field.", + "[But planting] one row of cucumbers, one row of gourds and one row of egyptian beans is prohibited. However, if one plants a field with a row each of three different species, it does look like kilayim, and it is prohibited.", + "[Planting] one row of cucumbers, one row of gourds, one row of Egyptian beans and [again] one row of cucumbers: Rabbi Eliezer permits, But the sages forbid. In this case he plants four rows of three different vegetables. Somewhat surprisingly, Rabbi Eliezer permits this. Albeck explains that according to Rabbi Eliezer, in this case it will be noticeable that he is not simply mixing up species, but planting alternate rows of three species, cucumbers, gourds and beans. Since it doesn’t look like kilayim, Rabbi Eliezer allows this arrangement. The other sages however still forbid this." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah teaches that one can sometimes plant two different species in one hole, as long as it doesn’t look like kilayim.", + "One may plant a cucumber and a gourd in one hole, as long as this [species] inclines in one direction, and the other [species] in the opposite direction. It is permitted to plant a cucumber and a gourd plant in one hole, as long as the leaves are inclining in opposite directions, so that it doesn’t look like kilayim.", + "And he should tip the leaves of one [species] one way, and the other the opposite way, since all that the sages prohibited [in matters of kilayim] they only decreed because of appearance. This entire section is missing from good manuscripts of the mishnah and is clearly a later addition, meant to explain section one. The main point is that from the Torah kilayim are only prohibited if the two species are actually mixed together. The rabbis added that if the two species look like they are mixed together, then it is prohibited “derabanan.” In the case of the cucumber and gourd whose leaves incline in opposite directions, since it doesn’t look like the two are intertwined, it is not prohibited at all." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with a person who has sown his field with onions and now wishes to plant some gourds there as well.", + "His field was sown with onions, and he wishes to plant in it rows of gourds:
Rabbi Ishmael says: he pulls up two rows [of onions] and plants [in the cleared space] one row [of gourds], then he leaves onions over a space of two rows, pulls up two rows [of onions] and plants [in the cleared space] one row [of gourds, and so on]. The first thing he does is uproot two rows of onions. Each row is four cubits wide, which means he now has an empty space of eight cubits (about four meters). He then can plant in the middle of this space a row of gourds, leaving two clear cubits on each side to separate them from the onions. He then may keep the next two rows of onions because they are separated from the gourds. Then he pulls up another two rows of onions and again plants within them one row of gourds. In this way there are twelve cubits between each row of gourds. This procedure continues as long as he wants. Rabbi Ishmael holds that since gourds have long leaves, if they are not significantly separated it will look like a field of gourds that has onions (or any other species of vegetable) mixed in.", + "Rabbi Akiva says: he pulls up two rows [of onions], plants [in the cleared space] two rows [of gourds], then he leaves onions over a space of two rows, pulls up two rows [of onions], and plants two rows [of gourds; and so on]. Rabbi Akiva is more lenient than Rabbi Ishmael and allows him to simply uproot two rows of onions and plant two rows of courts. There is no need for the gourds to be two cubits away from the onions. According to Rabbi Akiva, the gourds will end up being only eight cubits apart.", + "The sages say: if between one row [of gourds] and the next there are not twelve cubits, one may not allow that which is sown in the intervening space to remain. The sages partially agree with Rabbi Ishmael and partially with Rabbi Akiva. They agree with Rabbi Ishmael that the gourds must be twelve cubits apart. However they don’t agree that there must be two cubits separating the gourds from the onions. Therefore, what he may do is uproot two rows of onions and plant two rows of gourds, then leave three rows of onions, then uproot two rows of onions and plant two rows of gourds. In this way there are twelve cubits between the gourds (=three rows of onions) but there is no clear space separating the rows of gourds from the rows of onions." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with how close one may sow gourds to other species of vegetables or grain.", + "A gourd [sown] among a [different] vegetable [must be separated by as much] as any other vegetable. If he wants to sow a single gourd plant next to a different vegetable, the same rule that always applies to vegetables still applies he must distance them six handbreadths.", + "[A gourd sown] among grain he must give it [a separating space of] a bet rova. However, if he wants to sow the gourd next to grain, he must separate them the same distance that grains must be separated by a bet-rova (a space big enough to grow a quarter kav of grain). This is 10.2 cubits by 10.2 cubits, or about 25 square meters (see above 2:10).", + "If his field was sown with grain, and he wishes to plant within it a row of gourds, he must give [the gourds] six handbreadths for them to be worked. And if [the row of gourds] overgrows [into the border] he must pull up that which is within it. If he wants to make an entire row of gourds he need not separate it as far from the grain as he would if it were a single plant, because an entire row is recognizable as being distinct and looks less like kilayim than does a single plant. All he must do is separate the row of gourds from the grain by six handbreadths, the amount of space he needs around the gourds in order to take care of them. If the gourd plants overgrow this six handbreadth limit, he needs to remove the leaves that creep into the separation area.", + "Rabbi Yose says: he must give [the gourds] four cubits for them to be worked. They said to him: Do you rule more stringently with regard to this than with regard to a vine? He said to them: We find that [the gourd] is treated more stringently than a vine, since for a single vine he must give six handbreadths for it to be worked, but for a single gourd a bet rova. Rabbi Yose disagrees with the previous opinion and holds that he must give the gourds four cubits space to work them. The other rabbis respond that this would make the rule with regard to gourds stricter than the rule with regard to vines. Below in mishnah 4:5 we will learn that when it comes to separating vines from grain, only six handbreadths are required. Since the rules of kilayim governing vines mixed in with grain are in some ways stricter than those governing mixing of seeds, the rabbis question why Rabbi Yose is stricter with regard to the mixing of seeds. Rabbi Yose answers that there is precedent for his strict ruling. Single vines may be planted six handbreadths from grain, whereas single gourd plants must be distanced by a bet rova, as we learned above. In essence, Rabbi Yose holds that there is no difference in the distancing of single plants from full rows if a single plant must be distanced by a bet-rova, then so too must the full row.", + "Rabbi Meir said in the name of Rabbi Ishmael: if there are as many as three gourds in a bet seah, he may not bring [another] seed into the bet seah. Rabbi Yose ben Hahotef Ephrati said in the name of Rabbi Ishmael: if there are as many as three gourds in a bet kor, one may not bring [another] seed into the bet kor. Rabbi Meir says that if there are three gourd plants in a field the size of a bet seah (2500 square cubits) then he should not put any other type of seed in that plant. From here we can see that according to Rabbi Meir, gourds must be separated from other vegetables by the distance of 1/3 of a bet seah, and not merely by a bet rova, a far smaller amount. Rabbi Meir attributes this opinion to Rabbi Ishmael. Rabbi Yose ben Hahotef Ephrati transmits an even stricter opinion in the name of Rabbi Ishmael. A bet kor is 75,000 square cubits. If one brings so much as three gourd plants into a field this size, he may not plant another species of vegetable in that same field." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "A karahat [a bare patch] within a vineyard: Bet Shammai says: [it must measure] twenty-four cubits [by twenty-four cubits]. But Bet Hillel says: sixteen cubits.
A mehol [an unsown belt of ground between a planted area and a fence] of a vineyard: Bet Shammai says: [it must measure] sixteen cubits. But Bet Hillel says: twelve cubits.
What is a karahat of a vineyard? A vineyard which has been cleared [of vines] in its middle.
If there are less than sixteen cubits, then one may not bring seed into it. If it is sixteen cubits, they leave a space in which to work [the vineyard] and they may sow the rest.
Our mishnah and the next two mishnayot deal with empty patches within a vineyard and with the question of how large these empty patches must be before one can sow seed in them. There are two kinds of empty patches. The first is in the middle of the vineyard and it is called a “karahat,” or a bare patch.
The second is called a “mehol” and it is on the sides of the vineyard, adjacent to the fence. This patch need not be as large as the karahat in order for one to be allowed to plant there. According to Albeck, the word “mehol” is a reference to dances (“meholot”) that they would have there at the end of the harvesting season. Think of an ancient mishnaic square dance, with vineyards instead of haystacks!
Sections one and two: Before the mishnah discusses the law of a karahat or mehol, or even what these things are, it brings a debate between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel concerning how large they must be in order to be considered a karahat or a mehol. As usual, Bet Shammai is the stricter opinion, with regard to both the karahat and the mehol.
Section three: As explained in the introduction, a karahat is a patch in the middle of a vineyard in which there is a clearing, meaning there are no vines.
Section four: If this patch is smaller than sixteen cubits (the opinion of Bet Hillel) then it is forbidden to sow seed there. However, if there are sixteen cubits by sixteen cubits, they can leave space in which to work the vines (four cubits on each side) and plant seeds in the middle. For instance, if the karahat is 16 by 16, he leaves four cubits on each side and he is left with an 8 x 8 patch 8 in which to plant seed." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn yesterday’s mishnah we learned about two types of empty space within a vineyard the karahat, found in the middle of the vineyard, and the mehol, found on the sides. In both cases if the empty space is large enough, one can sow seeds there without creating kilayim.\nToday’s mishnah explains what a mehol is.", + "What is a mehol in a vineyard? [The space] between the vineyard and a fence. A mehol is an empty patch of ground between the vines and the fence that encloses the vineyard.", + "If there are less than twelve cubits, then one may not bring seed into it. If there are twelve cubits, they leave a space in which to work [the vineyard] and they may sow the rest. This is the same rule we saw in yesterday’s mishnah with regard to the karahat, except here the measure is twelve cubits, an area smaller than that necessary for the karahat. The reason why a smaller area is sufficient for it to be allowed to sow seeds here is that there is a vineyard only on one side the other side is just a fence. In contrast, the karahat is surrounded by the vineyard." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn today’s mishnah Rabbi Judah disagrees with the definition of a “mehol” found in yesterday’s mishnah.", + "Rabbi Judah says: this is nothing but the fence of the vineyard fence. Rabbi Judah says that the empty space between a fence and a vineyard is not a mehol but is rather considered an extension of the fence. In such an area it is prohibited to sow seeds, even if the area is more than twelve cubits by twelve cubits.", + "What then is a mehol of a vineyard? [A space] between two vineyards. According to Rabbi Judah a mehol is the empty space between two vineyards. If there are twelve cubits of such space, they leave four cubits on each side in which to work the vineyard and there will be four cubits left in the middle in which he can plant seed.", + "What is considered a fence? One that is ten handbreadths high. For a fence to legally separate two different entities it must be ten handbreadths high. Note that this was the same height as the eruv and the sukkah. Anything under ten handbreadths is too small to be considered.", + "And what is considered a trench? One ten handbreadths deep and four wide. Similarly, when areas are separated by trenches, the trenches must be ten handbreadths deep in order to function as legal separators (this was already taught above in 2:8)." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah continues to discuss what constitutes a legal partition in order to separate seeds on one side from a vineyard on the other. If the partition is sufficient, it will be permitted to sow seeds on one side and a vineyard on the other.", + "A partition of reeds: if between one reed and another there are less than three handbreadths, [the space] through which a kid (young could enter, it counts as a [legally effective] partition. For the partition of reeds to count, there must be less than three handbreadths between each reed. Three handbreadths is considered by the mishnah the amount of space that a kid (goat) would need to enter. (Goats would have been the pests farmers would have wanted to most keep out of their fields). Note that in this case there is more open space than filled space because the reeds are surely less than three handbreadths. However, since there is no open space more than three handbreadths, the entire partition counts as a fence.", + "A [stone] fence which has been broken through up to [the length of] ten cubits, [the breach] is [regarded] as a doorway; more than that, opposite the breach it is prohibited [to sow seeds]. A stone fence can have a breach up to ten cubits (about five meters) in length and still count as a fence. In such a case one could plant seeds even opposite the breached area, because this breach is treated as if it were a door. However, if there is more than ten cubits of open space, he can’t sow seeds opposite the breach.", + "If there were many breaches in the fence, if that which remains standing exceeds that which is broken through, it is permitted [to sow there]. But if the breached sections exceed those which remain standing, it is forbidden [to sow opposite the breaches.] If there were many breaches each less than ten cubits, the rule is that for the fence to count, the standing portion must exceed the breached portion. If it does, then he can sow seeds even opposite the breached portion. However, if the breached portion exceeds the standing portions, then he can’t sow seeds opposite the breached portions, although he can still plant opposite the standing portion." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn today’s mishnah Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai dispute how many rows of vines are necessary for the vines to be considered a “vineyard” and not simply a row of vines.", + "One who has planted a row of [at least] five vines: Bet Shammai says: these constitute a vineyard. But Bet Hillel says: they do not constitute a vineyard unless there are two rows. According to Bet Shammai, a row of five vines counts as a vineyard. Hence, one who wants to plant seeds near such a row of vines must leave a gap of four cubits in order to tend to the vines and then he may plant. In contrast, Bet Hillel says that there must be two rows in order for vines to count as a vineyard. The Tosefta explains that each row must have at least three vines.", + "Consequently, one who says four cubits within the vineyard: Beth Shammai says: he has sanctified one row [of the vineyard, and created kilayim]. But Bet Hillel says: he has sanctified two rows. In this section we learn that the previous definition can cause Bet Shammai to be more lenient than Bet Hillel. The mishnah deals with a person who planted seeds within four cubits of a vineyard, meaning within the space needed to work the vineyard. According to Bet Shammai, this causes the first row of the vineyard to become kilayim. To signify that something has become kilayim the mishnah uses the word “sanctify (kidesh),” which is the word used in Deuteronomy 22:9. Sometimes when things become “sanctified” they can no longer be used it is prohibited to derive benefit from them. Since a vineyard can consist of only one row, when the Torah states that the “vineyard” becomes sanctified, Bet Shammai interprets this to mean that the minimum area which can be considered a vineyard becomes sanctified. Since Bet Hillel holds that two rows are necessary for vines to be considered a vineyard they correspondingly hold in this situation that two rows of the vineyard have been sanctified and are forbidden from use." + ], + [ + "Introduction This mishnah deals with various formations of vines that either do or do not constitute a vineyard.", + "One who plants two [vines] opposite two [other vines], and one [other vine] forming a “tail” behold this is a vineyard. The easiest way to understand this mishnah is through a few simple illustrations (as you probably know by now, I don’t know how to make complicated illustrations, so the simple kind will have to suffice). The following set up of vines counts as a vineyard:
●    ●
●    ●
●
The bottom vine is the “tail” and hence we have here a vineyard. Also the following set up will count as a vineyard, because again, the bottom vine counts as a tail:
●    ●
●    ●
      ●", + "Two [vines] opposite two [other vines], and one [other vine] in between, or two opposite two, and one in the middle, these are not a vineyard until there are two opposite two with one [other] forming a tail. However, the following setups do not constitute vineyards:
●    ●
●
●    ●
Or this:
●    ●
      ●
●    ●
In order for there to be a vineyard, there must be a tail at the end and not a single vine in the middle." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with a person who plants one row of vines on his own land and one row on another’s. The question is whether these two rows combine to be a vineyard.", + "One who has planted one row [of vines] on his own [land] and another row on his neighbor's [land], and there is a private road or a public road in the middle, or a fence lower than ten handbreadths, these [two rows] combine. The mishnah rules that the vines join together to form a vineyard even if they are separated by either a private road or even a public road. Similarly, a fence that is lower than ten handbreadths will not separate the two vines. In such a case, before he can plant seeds near these vines he will have to leave a distance of four cubits around the vines in order to tend to them.", + "If there is a fence higher than ten handbreadths they do not combine. Rabbi Judah says: If he intertwines them [the rows of vines] above [the fence] they do combine. However, if the fence is higher than ten handbreadths, then the two vines do not join to constitute a vineyard. Rabbi Judah adds in that if he intertwines the vines on top of the fence, then they do join together to form a vineyard." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with a case of a person who planted two or three rows of vines and left a significant gap unplanted in between them how big does the gap have to be for him to be allowed to plant seeds there?", + "One who has planted two rows [of vines] if there are not eight cubits between them, he may not bring seed there [in the space between the two rows]. If there are more than eight cubits separating the two rows, then they do not join together to form a vineyard. In such a case he may leave six handbreadths space from each row and in the middle plant seed. However, if there are less than eight cubits, then this counts as a vineyard and he can’t plant any seed in between.", + "If there are three [rows] if there are not between one row and its companion sixteen cubits he may not bring seed there. If there are three rows of vines, then there has to be a gap of sixteen cubits in between for the rows not to join together and count as a vineyard. We will learn more about this in tomorrow’s mishnah.", + "Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob said in the name of Hananya ben Hakinai: even if the middle row was laid waste and there is not between one row and its companion row sixteen cubits, he may not bring seed there, but if he had planted them [two rows] at the outset, it is permitted [to sow between them] if they are eight cubits [apart]. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob distinguishes between a case where there were originally three rows and then the middle row was destroyed and a case where there were originally only two rows. If there were originally three rows and the middle row was destroyed we look at the vines as if the middle one was still there. Hence there must be sixteen cubits between each row of vines in order to plant seeds in between. However, if he originally planted only two rows, then they need to be separated by only eight cubits, as we learned in section one." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with a person who intentionally leaves large gaps between the rows of vines in his vineyard so that he can plant seed in the spaces in between.", + "One who plants his vineyard sixteen cubits, sixteen cubits [separating each row], he may bring seed there. As we learned in yesterday’s mishnah, if a person leaves a gap of sixteen cubits between the rows of vines in his vineyard, he can plant seeds in between. All he will have to do is leave a space of six handbreadths to work the vines and then he can plant.", + "Rabbi Judah said: It happened at Tsalmon that a man planted his vineyard on [a plan of] sixteen cubits, sixteen cubits [separating each row]. [One year] he would turn the tips of the vine branches of two [adjacent rows] towards one place, and sow the furrow [in between], and the following year he would turn the tips of the vine branches in the opposite direction, and sow the land which had been left untilled [the preceding year]. The matter came before the sages, and they declared it permitted. Rabbi Judah brings a case of a person who set up his vineyard with sixteen cubits in between each row. One year he turned the tips of his vines in one direction so that they wouldn’t be over the seeds that he wished to plant in between. Then he planted in the furrow in between these two rows. The following year he turned the tips in the opposite direction so that a different empty space would be uncovered and he could plant there. This method had the added advantage of leaving one side fallow every year. The rabbis allowed this because in each year there was a true gap of sixteen cubits between each vine.", + "Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon say: even one who has planted his vineyard with eight cubits [between every two rows], this is permitted. Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon are more lenient when it comes to how large the gap in between the rows must be. They hold that it need only be eight cubits, even if there are three or more rows. This is the same distance we learned about in yesterday’s mishnah if there were only two rows." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with two vineyards that potentially do not count as vineyards. The first is a vineyard that has been partly ruined, and the second is a vineyard that was not planted in the way in which vineyards are normally planted.", + "A vineyard that has been [partly] ruined: if it is still possible to harvest ten vines within a bet seah, and they are planted according to halakhah, behold this is called a “poor vineyard.” If the vineyard was ruined but there are still ten usable vines within a field the size of a bet seah (2500 square cubits, about 25 meters by 25 meters), then these vines constitute a vineyard and all of the rules regarding a vineyard apply. The one caveat is that the vineyard has to have been planted according to halakhah, meaning two vines opposite two vines with a fifth vine forming a tail (see illustrations in 4:6). If there are less than ten vines or they were not planted according to the normal way then they don’t constitute a vineyard.", + "A vineyard planted in a mixed-up manner, if there remains an alignment of [one line of] two parallel [vines] opposite [a line of] three [vines], it constitutes a vineyard, but if not it is not a vineyard. Rabbi Meir says: since it is in appearance like a vineyard [in general], it is a vineyard. If a vineyard was planted in a mixed up manner, meaning not in the normal way (which the Mishnah terms “according to halakhah”) then these vines still constitute a vineyard if there is one section where the proper alignment (2 x 2, with a tail) remains. If no such alignment is found anywhere within this vineyard then it just doesn’t count as a vineyard. Rabbi Meir says that since there are a lot of vines here and it looks like a vineyard, it still counts as a vineyard even if the proper or normal alignment of vines doesn’t exist anywhere. Rabbi Meir might be concerned that if the sages did not treat this mixed up vineyard as a real vineyard people would become mixed up and treat real vineyards as if they too were not really vineyards (you might have to read that sentence a few times unless you too want to get mixed up!)" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with a vineyard where the vines have been planted less than four cubits one from the other, which is less than appropriate for a properly structured vineyard.", + "A vineyard that has been planted with less than four cubits [in between rows of vines]: Rabbi Shimon says: this is not a vineyard. But the sages say: it is a vineyard, and we look at the middle [rows] as if they were \tnot there. According to Rabbi Shimon since there are not four cubits between each vine, they don’t constitute a vineyard. The sages say that we can treat the rows in between the outer rows as if they don’t exist and just look at the larger distance separating the outer rows. In this way, if there are more than two rows they will constitute a vineyard because there will be more than four cubits separating them. However, the sages would agree with Rabbi Shimon that if there are only two rows separated by less than four cubits, then there is no vineyard." + ], + [ + "This mishnah deals with either a trench, a winepress or a mound that is found in a vineyard. The question asked is whether this space can be considered a separate domain such that it would be permitted to sow seeds there.", + "A trench passing through a vineyard, ten [handbreadths] deep and four wide: Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: if it runs right through from the beginning of the vineyard to the end, it looks like it is in between two [separately owned] vineyards, and it is permitted to sow in it. But if it is not, it is [regarded] as [if it were part of] a winepress.
According to Rabbi Eliezer if the trench is ten handbreadths deep and four wide it is considered to be its own domain and not part of the vineyard. The depth causes the sides to be treated as if they were walls, and the width gives the trench significance. Furthermore, the trench must go all the way through the property from one end to the other, causing the two sides of the vineyard to look as if they were owned by different people. If the trench does not go all the way through the property, then he regards it in the same way that the sages in the next section regard a winepress and it will be forbidden to sow seeds there. ", + "And as for a winepress in a vineyard, and [the winepress] is ten [handbreadths] deep and four wide: Rabbi Eliezer says: it is permitted to sow in it. But the sages prohibit.
Rabbi Eliezer permits one to sow seeds in a winepress (assumedly one no longer used) as long as it is ten handbreadths deep and four wide. Evidently, Rabbi Eliezer is more lenient than the other rabbis and doesn't require the winepress to pass through the entire length of the property. The other sages, however, disagree and hold like Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob that this is prohibited unless the trench/winepress runs from one end of the vineyard to the other.", + "A watchman’s mound in a vineyard, ten handbreadths high and four wide: it is permitted to sow in it. But if the ends of the vine-branches become intertwined over it, it is forbidden.
A watchman's mound is an elevated space upon which they would build a hut for the watchman to sit in while guarding the vineyard. If this mound is ten handbreadths high and four wide then they may sow seeds on it. However, if the ends of vines are entangled in the air over the mound then the mound is considered to be part of the vineyard and one cannot sow there. It seems that the trench, however, would be permitted even if the vines are entangled in the air over the trench. The reason would be that these vines do not come into the ten handbreadths of the depth of the trench, whereas they do come in the ten handbreadths of the height of the mound. " + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn yesterday’s mishnah we discussed a case where of a winepress or a trench going through a vineyard. In today’s mishnah we learn of an opposite situation, where a vine is found in the winepress.", + "A vine planted in a winepress or in a depression [in the ground], they leave it room to work on it, and one may sow on the rest. Rabbi Yose says: if there are not four cubits there, one may not bring seed there. If there is a vine found inside the winepress or in another depression in the ground, then all one has to do is leave space to work the vine (six handbreadths around the entire vine) and then he may plant the rest of the area. Rabbi Yose holds that if the winepress or depression is not four cubits by four cubits, then there can’t be enough space in it to work the vine and plant seeds. He can only plant seeds there if the winepress is more than four cubits by four cubits.", + "As for a house that is within a vineyard, it is permitted to sow there. A house is considered to be its own domain. Therefore, if there is a house within a vineyard, he can plant seeds inside the house, even if the vines above the house are intertwined. A house is different from a wall or a trench in that the house creates inner space." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah begins to discuss what happens if seeds are planted in a vineyard. Deuteronomy 22:9 reads, “You shall not sow your vineyard with a second kind of seed (kilayim), else the crop from the seed you have sown and the yield of the vineyard may not be used (pen tikdash).” The rabbis understand the words “pen tikdash” to mean that one cannot derive any benefit at all from these crops. Furthermore, this prohibition is not just for one who plants kilayim, but also from one who allows kilayim that have already grown to remain in a vineyard.\nOur mishnah teaches how much of the vineyard becomes forbidden if kilayim are planted or even found there. The general principle is that the seeds cause all vines within a eight cubit radius (half of what the mishnah refers to as a 16 cubit diameter) to become prohibited.", + "One who plants a vegetable or leaves it to remain in a vineyard, he renders prohibited [as kilayim] forty-five vines. When is this so? When they were planted with either four or five [cubits between rows]. Picture a vineyard where the rows are separated by four cubits. If there are seeds in the middle of such rows and you draw a circle whose radius is 8 cubits around this point, it will turn out that 45 vines are within this radius (I’m sorry, but I don’t think I can draw this one). Therefore, all 45 vines are prohibited. If there are five cubits between each row, then only 37 vines will be within the circle. However, the mishnah still rules that 45 vines are prohibited because a person might make an error between four and five cubits.", + "If they were planted with either six or seven [cubits between rows] he renders prohibited as kilayim [the vines within an area of] sixteen cubits in every direction, in the form of a circle, not of a square. However, if there are more than four or five cubits between the rows, let’s say that there are six or seven cubits, then we simply draw a circle whose radius is 8 cubits around the seeds and any vine which falls in this radius is prohibited." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nAs we learned in yesterday’s mishnah, kilayim is caused not just when a person plants seeds in a vineyard, but also when one sees seeds and allows them to continue to grow. Our mishnah discusses how immediately a person must uproot the seeds that he sees growing in his vineyard.", + "One who sees a vegetable in a vineyard, and said: “When I reach it I will pluck it,” it is permitted. If while tending to the vineyard he sees the vegetable growing in the vineyard and says that he will pluck it when he gets to it, the vines have not become prohibited. This is true even if the vegetables grow in the meantime. Since he was not actually lazy and only said that he would pluck the vegetables when he got to them in his rounds through the vineyard, he is not penalized.", + "[But if he says:] “When I come back I will pluck it,” if [the vegetable] has [in the meantime] increased by a two-hundredth, it is forbidden. However, if he was near the vegetable and then said that he will pluck it when he gets back to it, then the vines will become prohibited if the vegetable grows 1/200 in the meantime. In other words, for the vines to become prohibited the vegetable has to grow a minimum amount of time after the moment that he first noticed it. Since he could have plucked them when he was there, he was lazy and the kilayim prohibition goes into effect. Interestingly, the amount it grew before he even noticed it does not cause the vines to become prohibited. We see here that the mere existence of kilayim doesn’t cause a prohibition. Rather there must be human involvement, either by planting the seeds in the vineyard or noticing them and allowing them to stay there. This will become even more obvious when we learn tomorrow’s mishnah." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with various situations where seeds get into a vineyard without a person having intentionally planted them there.", + "If he was passing through a vineyard, and seeds fell from him, or [seeds] went [into the field] with manure, or with [irrigation] water, or if he was [in a grain field] scattering seed and the wind blew some behind him [into a vineyard], everything is permitted. Since he didn’t plant the seeds in the vineyard, rather they got there in ways that were unanticipated and perhaps even out of his control, they don’t create kilayim in the vineyard. The vineyard will only become prohibited if he subsequently sees them there and doesn’t uproot them.", + "If the wind blew the seed in front of him [into a vineyard], Rabbi Akiba says: If it has produced small shoots, he must turn the soil. If it has reached the stage of green ears, he must beat them out. If it has grown into grain, it must be burnt. In the previous section we learned that if the wind blew the seeds behind him into a vineyard, they don’t cause the vineyard to become prohibited. Here we learn that if the wind was blowing in front of him, he will have to uproot the seeds and destroy them. If only small shoots, then all he needs to do is turn the soil in order to uproot them. If it has made green ears of grain, then he must uproot the ears and beat them out so that it will be unusable. Finally, if it ripened and produced grain then the grain must be burnt. The Rambam adds that if he noticed the grain growing there and didn’t do anything about it, then the vines must be burnt as well, as we learned in yesterday’s mishnah." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah returns to discuss what types of species are considered to be kilayim in a vineyard.", + "One who allows thorns to remain growing in a vineyard: Rabbi Eliezer says: he [thereby] prohibits [the vineyard]. But the sages say: he does not prohibit except if it something that is generally allowed to grow. According to Rabbi Eliezer, thorns are considered to be kilayim in a vineyard because in certain regions, according to the Talmud in Arabia, they grow thorns in the fields as camel fodder. Therefore, one who sees thorns growing in his vineyard and doesn’t remove them has caused the vineyard to become prohibited. The sages disagree and hold that unless that species is generally allowed to grow, then it cannot be considered kilayim in a vineyard. Since most people do not allow thorns to grow, they are not considered kilayim in a vineyard.", + "Iris, ivy, and the king’s lily, and all manner of seeds are not kilayim in a vineyard. This section further illustrates this principle. Iris, ivy and king’s lily are not generally grown for food, even for animal food, and hence they are not kilayim in a vineyard. Neither are any other types of seeds only grain and vegetables count as kilayim in a vineyard.", + "[As for] hemp: Rabbi Tarfon said: it is not kilayim, But the sages say it is kilayim. Hemp is not kilayim in a vineyard according to Rabbi Tarfon but it is according to the sages. Assumedly the sages think that it does count as food and that most people would grow it, and therefore it can be kilayim in a vineyard.", + "Artichokes are kilayim in a vineyard. Artichokes count as a vegetable and are therefore kilayim in a vineyard. They are also one of my favorite Friday night appetizers, but that is not why they are kilayim." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction In mishnah 4:5 we learned that according to Bet Hillel, there need to be two rows of vines for their to be a vineyard, whereas Bet Shammai held that only one row was necessary. As a reminder, if something is considered a vineyard, he will have to distance seeds four cubits from there, whereas if it is considered to be individual vines, he will only have to distance the seeds six handbreadths. In today’s mishnah we learn that Bet Hillel agrees with Bet Shammai that an aris, vines draped over reeds or a fence, is treated like a vineyard. In English this is translated as an “espalier,” a word which I admit that until now I did not know. My on-line dictionary translates it as, “a plant, especially a fruit tree, trained to grow flat against an upright surface, for example, a wall or fence, or on wires.”", + "What is an aris (an espalier) [which is regarded as a vineyard]? One who has planted a [single] row consisting of five vines beside a fence ten handbreadths high, or beside a trench ten handbreadths deep and four wide, they leave a space of four cubits in which to work it. For an aris to be considered like a vineyard, it must have at least five vines planted next to a fence ten handbreadths high or a trench ten handbreadths deep and four wide. They would train the vine to grow either on the sides of the fence, or on the walls of the trench. It seems that since this structure is more substantial, Bet Hillel agrees that it is treated like a vineyard. Practically speaking, treating the vines as a vineyard means that he will have to distance any seeds four cubits from them, as opposed to six handbreadths, the distance for single vines.", + "Bet Shammai says: they measure the four cubits from the body of the vine to the field; But Bet Hillel says: from the fence to the field. The mishanh now records a disagreement as to where they measure from when providing a space to work the vineyard. According to Bet Shammai they measure from the vines themselves. Bet Hillel says that they measure from the fence on which the vines are trained to the plot that he wants to plant with seeds, even though there will end up being less than four cubits between the actual vines and the seeds.", + "Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said: all who say so are mistaken! Rather, if there are four cubits from the body of the vines to the fence, they leave a space in which to work it and they may sow the rest. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri disagrees with the tradition in the previous sections, according to which Bet Hillel holds that one row of vines is counted as a vineyard if it is in the form of an aris. Rabbi Yohanan b. Nuri admits that there was a tradition concerning “four cubits” and an “aris,” but he holds that the tradition was not like that recorded above. The “four cubits” and an “aris” tradition teaches that if the aris grew four cubits out from the fence, then they leave a space (of six handbreadths) in which to work the aris, just as they do with a single row of vines, and they may plant between this space and the fence. However, if there are less than four cubits, then one can’t plant between the vines and the fence.", + "And how much is the space in which work to work a vine? Six handbreadths in every direction. Rabbi Akiva says: three. This section now teaches how much space one must leave to work a single vine, meaning how much space one must leave between the vine and any seeds. According to the first opinion, he needs to leave six handbreadths, whereas Rabbi Akiva holds that three are sufficient." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with an aris grown on a terrace, and the vines are draped over a field below. Do the vines above cause it to be prohibited to sow seeds in the fields below?", + "An aris which projects from a terrace: Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: if a person standing on [level] ground is able to harvest all of it, [such an aris] prohibits [sowing seed in] four cubits of the field, but if [he is] not [able to do so], it prohibits [sowing seed] only [in] the [soil] which is directly below it. If a man standing on the ground below is able to reach up and harvest the grapes from the aris, then we look at the aris as if it stood in the field itself and it prohibits sowing seeds within four cubits. However, if he can’t reach up and harvest the grapes then the aris prohibits sowing seeds only directly below the aris. It will be permitted to plant in the space not directly below the aris, even if this is less than four cubits from the vines.", + "Rabbi Eliezer says: even one who has planted one [row of vines] on the ground, and one on a terrace, then if it is ten handbreadths above the [level] ground, one does not combine with the other; if it is not [ten handbreadths high] then one does combine with the other. Rabbi Eliezer brings another rule that also has to deal with vines planted on terraces. If one row of vines is planted on an upper terrace and another row is planted on a lower terrace, then the rows combine, provided that the upper row is less than ten handbreadths higher than the lower row. In such a case the rows will combine to form a vineyard. However, if they are separated by more than ten handbreadths, then they do not combine to form a vineyard and each row is treated separately." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with one who hangs vines over a trellis the question is can he plant seeds under the parts of the trellis not covered with vines.", + "One who suspends vines over papyrus-ropes [of a trellis], he may not bring seed beneath the remainder [of the trellis]. It is forbidden, ab initio, to sow seeds underneath a trellis with vines trained over it, even underneath the parts that don’t have vines on them.", + "However, if he did so, he has not caused them to be prohibited. Although one is not allowed to plant seeds underneath the trellis, if he does do so, he has not caused the seeds to be prohibited. This is because he has not sown the seeds underneath the vines themselves.", + "If new [tendrils] spread [over the remainder], that [which was sown under the remainder] is forbidden. If, contra to the rules, he does sow seeds underneath the trellis when there are no vines directly overhead, and then the vines do grow over those seeds, the seeds underneath the vines now become prohibited.", + "Similarly, when one hangs vines over some part of a non-fruit-bearing tree. The same rules that apply above also apply when one hangs vines over a non-fruit bearing tree. The tree in this case is considered to be like a trellis because it does not bear fruit. In tomorrow’s mishnah we will learn that the rule is different when the tree does bear fruit." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn yesterday’s mishnah we learned about a person who trains vines over non-fruit bearing trees. In today’s mishnah we learn about training vines over fruit bearing trees and whether one can sow seeds underneath other parts of the trees.", + "One who suspends [branches of] a vine on part of [the branches of] a fruit tree, it is permitted to bring seed beneath the remainder. Whereas when it came to non-fruit bearing trees it was forbidden to bring seed beneath the remainder, when it comes to fruit-bearing trees, it is permitted. This is because the fruit-bearing tree is considered to be significant and is not discounted compared to the vines. In other words, it is not treated like a trellis. Since it is considered its own entity, it is only forbidden to introduce seed directly underneath the vine.", + "If new [tendrils] spread [over the remainder], he must turn them back. When it came to non-fruit bearing trees, if the tendrils grew over the seeds which were (against the rules) sown below, they caused the seeds to become forbidden. Again, the rule is more lenient when it comes to fruit-bearing trees. When the vines’ tendrils grow over them, the seeds do not become prohibited, but he must nevertheless turn the tendrils back.", + "It happened that Rabbi Joshua went to Rabbi Ishmael in Kefar Aziz, and the latter showed him a vine [with its branches] suspended on part of [the branches of] a fig tree. He [Rabbi Yishmael] asked him [Rabbi Joshua]: “May I bring seed beneath the remainder?” He answered him: “It is permitted.” The mishnah now relates a story containing a halakhic discussion between Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Ishmael. In the first story Rabbi Ishmael asks Rabbi Joshua if he can bring seed under the remaining parts of a fruit tree, those parts that don’t have vines over them. In accordance with what we learned above, Rabbi Joshua says that this is permitted.", + "He took him to Bet Hamaganyah and he showed him a vine [whose branches were] suspended on part of a beam belonging to the trunk of a sycamore, which had many beams. He [Rabbi Joshua] said to him [Rabbi Yishmael]: beneath this beam it is prohibited [to sow] but beneath the remainder it is permitted. In the second story, the two rabbis find themselves near a vine whose branches were spread over the beams of a sycamore tree, which is non-fruit bearing. The answer here is a little different than the law that we learned in mishnah three above. Rabbi Joshua tells him that he is not allowed to bring seed underneath the entire beam, because the beam is so large that it is treated as an independent tree. However, he may bring seed underneath the other beams because they are treated as if they were separate trees." + ], + [ + "Introduction Our mishnah defines what is a non-fruit bearing tree, termed in Hebrew serak, with regard to the halakhot which we learned above in mishnayot three and four.", + "What is a serak (non-fruit bearing) tree?
Any tree which does not yield fruit. The first opinion simply holds that all trees that do not bear fruit are considered to be serak trees, and all of the rules in mishnah three above apply to them.", + "Rabbi Meir says: all trees are serak, except the olive and the fig tree. Rabbi Meir holds that the only non-serak trees, meaning the only trees whose fruit are significant, are the olive and fig trees. All other trees are considered “serak,” non-fruit bearing. We should probably remember that the wide variety of trees that we now have certainly did not exist in the ancient near east. The one significant tree that Rabbi Meir does seem to be excluding is the date palm. Perhaps date palms were not used in training grape vines and hence Rabbi Meir just doesn’t consider them in this context. Alternatively, Rabbi Meir holds that grapes were more valuable than dates, and hence compared to the vine, the date palm is non-fruit bearing.", + "Rabbi Yose says: all trees that are not planted in whole fields, are serak trees. Rabbi Yose says that a tree is considered to be a fruit-bearing tree if people will plant a whole field of that type of tree. For instance, if people will plant a whole field of etrog trees, then an etrog tree would be considered fruit bearing in the context of the rule above in mishnayot three and four. If not, then it is considered to be serak tree." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah returns to discuss the aris (espalier), the vines trained to grow on either a fence, another tree or in a ditch.", + "Gaps in an aris must be eight cubits and somewhat more [in order to be able to sow seeds in the gaps]. If there are gaps in an aris that are more than eight cubits wide, then one can sow seeds in them.", + "[In the case of] all measurements that the sages said in connection with a vineyard, there is no ‘and somewhat more’, except in the case of gaps in an aris. The mishnah now makes a parenthetical remark that throughout Kilayim, whenever a measure was given, it was given precisely. If the Mishnah says that something has to be four cubits, it need only be four cubits exactly. However, in the case of gaps in the aris, there has to be a little more than eight cubits. The Tosefta says that the gap must be eight cubits and one handbreadth.", + "The following count as gaps in an aris: if an aris was razed in its middle and five vines remained on one side and five vines on the other side. Then if the gap is [only] eight cubits, one may not bring seed there. [But if the gap is] eight cubits and somewhat more, they give [the vines] space to work them, and he may sow the rest. The mishnah now explains what gaps in an aris need to be in order to sow seeds there. There are two necessary conditions. The aris had to have originally had more than ten vines. The middle vines were then razed and there was left a gap in between the remaining vines that was big enough to plant two arisim, each of five vines. If this gap is precisely eight cubits (or less), then one cannot sow seeds in between. However, if the gap is more than eight cubits then he can leave space to work the remaining vines, and plant seeds in the middle. In mishnah one we learned that according to the sages, he needs to leave four cubits to work the remaining aris, whereas R. Yohanan ben Nuri holds that he need leave only six handbreadths. We should also note that gaps in an aris are treated differently from the karahat, the empty patch in a vineyard, which requires sixteen cubits for it to be permitted to plant there (mishnah 4:1)." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah continues to deal with the laws of an aris.", + "An aris which turns away from a wall where it forms an angle, and comes to an end, they give it space to work it and they may sow the rest. The mishnah describes a situation where an aris is planted at the corner where two walls meet, two of the vines being on one of the walls and three of the vines being on the other wall. In such a case, all he needs to do is leave six handbreadths from the vines in order to work them and he can plant the rest of the space in between the two walls.", + "Rabbi Yose says: if there are not four cubits there, one may not bring seed there. According to Rabbi Yose, there must be at least four cubits between the two walls; if there is not he may not sow seeds there." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with reed canes that protrude from an aris but that don’t have vines hanging on them.", + "Canes which protrude from the aris and one is too concerned for them to cut them short, it is permitted to sow directly beneath them. In this case the only reason that he hasn’t cut the unused canes down is that he doesn’t want to destroy them. He has no plans to train the vines over these canes. Therefore, he may sow seeds directly beneath them.", + "If he made them [long] so that the new [growth] might spread along them, it is forbidden [two sow underneath]. In this case, he does plan to use the canes as part of the aris. Hence, even before he does use them, it is forbidden to sow seeds underneath." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe final mishnah of chapter six continues to deal with things that extend from the aris.", + "A blossom which protruded from the aris, it is regarded as if a plumb line were suspended from it, directly beneath it, it is prohibited [to sow]. If a blossom of a new vine sticks out from an aris it is forbidden to plant only directly beneath the blossom. “Directly beneath” is determined by the use of a plumb line, which is dropped directly from the blossom.", + "Similarly, in the case of [a blossom protruding from] a hanging branch [of a single vine.] The same halakhah holds true for a blossom of a vine which protrudes from a single vine. It is forbidden to sow seeds only directly beneath this vine.", + "One who has stretched a vine-shoot from tree to tree, it is forbidden to sow beneath it. The following three sections deal with cases where a person extended a vine hung over one tree to hang it over another. If he simply extended the vine itself, it is prohibited to sow seeds underneath the vine.", + "If he made an extension [to the vine] by means of rope or reed, it is permitted under the extension. If the vine was too short to be extended to the other tree and he used a rope or a reed to extend it, then it is permitted to plant seeds underneath the reed.", + "If he made the extension so that the new [growth] might spread along it, it is forbidden. However, if he intends to train the vine to continue to grow onto the rope or reed, then it is prohibited to plant seeds directly underneath." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThe first three mishnayot of our chapter deal with an ancient vineyard farming technique called “bending” or “havracha” in Hebrew. Basically one takes a vine bends it into the ground and then takes the other head of the vine out of the ground in another place from where it will grow a new vine. The advantage gained through this technique is that he now gets a new vine that is in a sense “nursed” by its mother vine, at least for the time being. This is less risky and simpler than starting a new vine from scratch. Using this technique one can also allow more vines in his vineyard. The mishnah deals with the implications that this technique has on the laws of kilayim.", + "If one has bent a vine into the ground [and then brought it back up elsewhere], then if there is not soil over it to the height of three handbreadths, he may not sow seed above it, even if he bent [and conducted it underground] through a gourd or through a pipe. The issue here is whether one can plant seeds on top of the vine that is being conducted underground. The mishnah states that if there are not three handbreadths of soil above the vine he may not sow seeds there. This rule holds true even if he conducted the vine through a dried-out gourd, which would have been used as a pipe, or a regular pipe made out of clay. Since the seeds can pierce the walls of the gourd or the clay pipe, they are not sufficient to cause a break between the seeds and the vine.", + "If he bent it [and conducted] it through rocky soil, then even if there is not soil over it to the height of three handbreadths, it is permitted to sow seed above it. However, if the soil is rocky and the seeds will not be able to penetrate it and thereby come into contact with the vine, then he does not need three handbreadths of separation.", + "As for a knee-like vine [formed by burying and conducting it underground], they don’t measure [for how much space to work it] except from its second root. When the vine is taken out of the ground after having been conducted from there from the mother vine, it will bend down and form a knee-like point which is called an “avrucha.” When measuring how much space the vine needs to be worked, they measure from the second spot where the vine seems to come out of the ground, at this joint, and not from the root where it first comes out of the ground." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe first section of this mishnah continues to discuss laws related to vines which have been bent into the ground, and then their heads brought up elsewhere to start new vines.\nThe following three sections discuss three instances where it is prohibited to sow seeds but if he does sow seeds, the seeds are not prohibited as kilayim.", + "One who has bent [and conducted underground] three vines, and their [original] stems are visible, Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok says: if there is between them from four to eight cubits, they combine, if not, they do not combine. A person has taken three vines, bent their ends into the ground, conducted them elsewhere and then brought them back up again. It now looks as if he has two rows of three vines, which in normal cases constitutes a vineyard (see 4:5-6). Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok says that this constitutes a vineyard only if the old vines and new vines are four to eight cubits apart. If they are separated by more than eight cubits, than they are too far apart and hence don’t combine. If they are too close together then they don’t look like two different rows and since they are really the same vines, they don’t constitute a vineyard. In these situations, he need only distance six handbreadths in order to plant seed. However, if the “mother” vine and its offspring are between four and cubits apart then they do constitute a vineyard and he must distance the seed four cubits from it.", + "A vine which has dried up, it is forbidden [to sow near it], but it does not prohibit [the seed as kilayim]. A vine which has dried up does not have the same prohibitions connected to it as does a live vine. Nevertheless, because it is still a vine it is prohibited to plant seeds near it. If, however, one does plant seeds, the vine doesn’t cause the seeds to become kilayim.", + "Rabbi Meir said: the same applies to a cotton plant, it is forbidden [to sow near it], but it does not prohibit [the seed as kilayim]. The same halakhah holds true for the cotton plant, which resembles a grape vine, and also is called “tzemer gefen” (literally, the wool of the vine) which is similar to the word for vine, gefen. It is prohibited to plant seeds in proximity but if one does, the seeds are not prohibited.", + "Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok said in his name: above the vine too, it is forbidden [to sow near it], but it does not prohibit [the seed as kilayim]. Rabbi Elazar returns to discuss planting seeds on top of the vines which are conducted underneath the ground. While it is forbidden to plant on top of these buried vines unless there are three handbreadths of soil, if he does plant seeds there, the seeds are not forbidden as kilayim." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah continues to deal with situations in which it is prohibited to plant seeds, but if the seeds are planted there, they do not become kilayim.", + "The following are forbidden, but they do not prohibit [the seed sown there]:
The remainder of a [legally inadequate] empty patch ( of a vineyard. In mishnah 4:1 we learned about the empty patch in the vineyard, and that the patch must be 16 cubits before one can sow seeds there. If the patch is not large enough then it is forbidden to plant in the patch, even if he leaves four cubits of space to work the vineyard. However, since he did leave room to work the vineyard, the seed is not prohibited as kilayim.", + "The remainder of a [legally inadequate] mehol of a vineyard. The mehol is the empty space between the vineyard and a fence. If this space is 12 cubits then it is permitted to sow seeds there. It is forbidden to sow seeds if there are less than 12 cubits, but if he leaves four cubits space to work the vineyard, then the seeds are not kilayim.", + "The remainder of a [legally inadequate] aris-gap. We learned about sowing seeds in the gap of an aris (a trellis) in 6:6 there must be a gap of more than eight cubits between the sections for it to be permitted to sow seeds there. It is forbidden to sow seeds if there are 8 cubits or less, but if he leaves six handbreadths to work the individual vines that are left, then the seeds are not kilayim.", + "The [ground under the] remainder of papyrus-ropes [of a trellis]. We learned about these ropes in 6:3. These ropes were used to extend the vine to help keep it up. It was forbidden to plant underneath the ropes, but if one does the seeds are not prohibited.", + "But [the ground] beneath a vine, and within the place left to work a vine, and the [ground within] four cubits of a vineyard, these do prohibit the [seed sown there]. In contrast, in these situations if seeds are planted they are prohibited as kilayim. There are three such situations: 1) planting directly underneath the vines; 2) planting within the six handbreadths which one must leave to work an individual vine; 3) planting an area of four cubits within a vineyard." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn this mishnah and the two that follow, we learn about what happens if one person sows seed in someone else’s vineyard or someone puts a vine over someone else’s grain. Does this make the grain into kilayim?", + "One who causes his vine to overhang his fellow’s grain, behold he has caused the grain to be prohibited and he is responsible for it. According to the first opinion, when a vine is hung over grain it causes the grain to become kilayim, even if the grain doesn’t belong to the person who hung up the vine. Since he has ruined someone else’s property, he must pay for the damage he has caused.", + "Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon say: a person does not prohibit [as kilayim] that which is not his own. Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon hold that a person can’t make kilayim in someone else’s vineyard. This is derived from a midrash on Deuteronomy 22:9, which states, “Don’t seed your vineyard kilayim.” From the word “your” the rabbis learn that this rule applies to one who seeds his own vineyard, and not one who seeds someone else’s vineyard." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah is a continuation of yesterday’s mishnah.", + "Rabbi Yose said: It happened that a man sowed [seed in] his vineyard in the sabbatical year, and the matter came before Rabbi Akiva, who said: a person does not prohibit [as kilayim] that which is not his own. During the sabbatical year produce grown in one’s field is considered ownerless anyone who wants can come and take it, although he is not allowed to sell it. Therefore, Rabbi Akiva takes the rule that we learned in yesterday’s mishnah, “a person does not prohibit [as kilayim] that which is not his own” and applies it to the case that comes before him, of one who sowed his own vineyard with seed during the sabbatical year. Rabbi Akiva rules that the seeds are not prohibited as kilayim." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with a case where a person was forced off of his property by another person, called an anas, a term which I have translated as “forceful occupier.” Evidently, this was a problem in the tannaitic period, and there are a number of halakhot that deal with the phenomenon (see for instance Mishnah Sanhedrin 3:3). In our case, the anas sows seeds in the vineyard and then the rightful owner gets his property back. As we learned in yesterday’s mishnah, since the vineyard does not belong to the anas, the seeds are not forbidden immediately. The question that our mishnah asks is: when the property reverts to the original owner what does he have to do to prevent the seeds from becoming forbidden?", + "If a forceful occupier ( has sown seed in a vineyard, and it went out of his possession [and reverted to the rightful owner], he (the original should cut it down, even during hol hamoed. As soon as the land reverts to its rightful owner (a Jew) he must immediately cut down the seeds before they begin to grow. He must do so even on hol hamoed, when it is normally forbidden to work the field.", + "Up to what amount should he pay the workers? Up to a third. In order to cut down these seeds as promptly as possible, he must hire workers to do so. In other words, he can’t just cut them down himself if it will take him too long to do so. The mishnah asks how much he must pay these workers. There are two opinions as to what “up to a third” means. The first opinion is that he must pay them up to a third more than the usual wages. Another interpretation is that he must pay them up to a third of the value of the vineyard. Either way, he must spend a considerable sum of money to get rid of the seeds before the whole vineyard becomes prohibited.", + "If [they demand] more than this, he should cut it in his usual way even if he has to keep cutting after the festival. If the workers ask for more money, then he need not pay them such an exorbitant amount. Rather he can just cut the seeds down at his own pace, even if he won’t finish the work until after the festival.", + "At what point is he considered a forceful occupier (? From the [the name of the original owner] has sunk [into oblivion]. Finally, the mishnah asks what the definition of an anas is, in relation to the previous halakhah. In other words, in what situation must a person who gets his field back act according to the previous halakhah. The answer is that the field must have been called by the anas’s name, and not by the name of the original owner. If, however, the seeds were simply planted by someone who had not taken forceful possession of the field, or if the field was not yet recognized as belonging to the anas, then the rightful owner need not cut the seeds down with such haste, as we learned in yesterday’s mishnah. The reason why the law is stricter in the case of the anas is that people think that the field belonged to the anas and if the seeds are not prohibited they will think that the laws of kilayim are not being observed. In contrast, in other cases they will realize that someone planted seeds in a field that belonged to someone else and that this does not constitute a situation of kilayim." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe first part of our mishnah deals with the situations in which vines or produce seeds grow so that the vines cover the produce, without them having been planted this way.\nThe second half of the mishnah deals with the important question at one point it becomes possible for vines and produce to become prohibited as kilayim.", + "If wind has blown vines [so that they hang over] grain, one should immediately fence them apart. Since the person did not hang the grapes over the grain, they are not prohibited immediately. What he needs to do is fence them apart immediately, otherwise they might, under certain circumstances, become prohibited.", + "If an unforeseeable event occurred to him, it [the grain] is permitted. If something happens that prevents him from tending to this problem immediately and the grain grows while the vines hang over it, they are not prohibited. However, if he is simply negligent and doesn’t separate the vines and grains, then they do become prohibited once they grow 1/200 of their size (see 5:6).", + "If grain is bent [and the ears reach] beneath a vine, similarly in the case of vegetables, one should turn them back, and it does not prohibit [as kilayim]. In this case the ears of the grain grow into the area covered by the vines and not the vines into the grains (kind of reminds me of “your chocolate got in my peanut butter, your peanut butter got in my chocolate”). Since the grain’s roots are not covered by the vines and only the ears are covered, there is no prohibition. The same holds true for vegetables which grow underneath a vineyard only the roots cause the prohibition to take effect.", + "From what stage does grain prohibit kilayim? From the time it has struck root. Grain does not begin to cause a prohibition in a vineyard until the grain has struck root. Others interpret the word for “struck root” as if it reads, “until it has grown to one third” of its eventual height. If he uproots the grain before this point, then there is no kilayim prohibition.", + "And grapes? From the time they become as large as white beans. Grapes cannot be prohibited until they grow to be as large as white beans. If he harvests them before they grow to this size, then they are not prohibited.", + "Grain which has become completely dried out, and grapes which have fully ripened no longer prohibit as kilayim. This is the opposite of the previous two sections. If the grain or grapes are completely ripe and only afterwards do they come to be in a potential state of kilayim, they are not prohibited. In other words, in this mishnah we learn that for grain and grapes to be prohibited as kilayim they have to be in contact during a window of time that begins when they grow to a certain size and is completed when they are done growing." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with seeds of grain that were sown in a flowerpot and then brought in to a vineyard. This creates a situation of kilayim depending on whether the flowerpot is perforated. If it is perforated, then that which grows in the pot is treated as if it is grown in the ground. If it is not perforated, then it is not considered as if it is grown in the ground.", + "[Seed sown in a] perforated flowerpot, prohibits [as kilayim] in a vineyard. A flowerpot that is perforated is treated like the earth. If one plants seeds in such a pot and then puts the pot in a vineyard the seeds and grapes are kilayim and are prohibited.", + "[In] one not perforated, does not prohibit [as kilayim]. However, if the pot is not perforated, then nothing is prohibited as kilayim.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: both are forbidden but neither prohibits. According to Rabbi Shimon, while it is forbidden to bring either type of pot with seeds into the vineyard, neither of them becomes kilayim. Rabbi Shimon disagrees specifically with the opinion in section one. He holds that even perforated flowerpots are not treated like the ground.", + "One who carries a perforated flowerpot through a vineyard, if [that which is sown in it] grows a two-hundredth part, it is forbidden. This section discusses a person who carries a perforated flowerpot through a vineyard, and doesn’t put it on the ground, as was the situation in section one. The mishnah rules that if the seeds that are in the pot grow 1/200 of their size while being carried through the vineyard, they are forbidden to eat. However, they are not strictly kilayim, nor do they cause the grapes to be kilayim either." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah goes over the various basic laws and prohibitions with all four different types of kilayim.", + "Kilayim of the vineyard: it is forbidden both to sow and to allow to grow, and it is forbidden to derive benefit from them. Kilayim of the vineyard are grain or vegetables that grow in a vineyard. This is the strictest form of kilayim. It is forbidden to sow the grain or vegetables in the vineyard and it is even forbidden to allow grain or vegetables to grow in the vineyard. Finally, if this does occur, it is prohibited to derive any benefit from the produce or the grapes. This would mean that one couldn’t even use such products to feed animals, nor could one sell them to non-Jews.", + "Kilayim of seeds: it is forbidden both to sow and to allow to grow, but it is permitted to eat them, and all the more so to derive benefit from them. Kilayim of seeds are when produce of two different kinds of seed are grown in the same field. It is prohibited to sow or allow these seeds to grow, just as it is with kilayim of the vineyard. However, if they do grow it is permitted to eat them, and if it is permitted to eat them, it is all the more so permitted to derive other types of benefit from them.", + "Kilayim of clothing: is permitted in all respects, except that it is forbidden to wear them. Kilayim of clothing is a mixture of wool and linen, called shatnez (Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22:11). It is permitted to derive benefit from such mixtures. It is also permitted to weave and sell or own these types of clothing. The only prohibition is to wear them.", + "Kilayim of beasts: it is permitted to raise and to keep, and it is only prohibited to cross-breed them. Kilayim of beasts refers to either cross-breeding or cross-yoking. This section notes that it is permitted to raise animals born of cross-bred parents. For instance one can raise and keep a mule. It is only forbidden to cross-breed animals in order to make the mule in the firstplace.", + "Kilayim of beasts: these one are prohibited with these. This introduces the topic which the rest of the chapter will discuss cross-yoking animals, that is yoking together different types of animals." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah teaches that it is forbidden to yoke together all potential combinations of two different species of animal and plow with them or even pull them or lead them while yoked together.", + "A beast (behemah) with a beast [of another species]; a wild animal (hayyah) with a wild animal [of another species]; a behemah with a hayyah; a hayyah with a behemah; an unclean beast with an unclean beast [of another species]; a clean beast with a clean beast [of another species]; or an unclean beast with a clean beast; or a clean beast with an unclean beast; they are forbidden for plowing, and [it is forbidden] to pull them or lead them [tied together]. A behemah is a domesticated animal such as an ox. A hayyah is a wild animal such as a deer. In this exhaustive mishnah we learn that all potential combinations are prohibited, even though it is unlikely that some of these animals would ever be yoked at all." + ], + [ + "The person driving [the two different animals yoked together] receives the forty [lashes]. And the person sitting in the wagon receives the forty [lashes]. But Rabbi Meir exempts [the latter]. This section explains who exactly is liable for transgressing the laws of kilayim, or cross-yoking, of beasts/wild animals. According to the first opinion, there are two essential prohibitions which one can transgress driving the kilayim animals and sitting in a wagon being driven by the two animals. Although the one sitting in the wagon is not the one leading or actually causing the plowing to be done, he is still liable. The Yerushalmi explains that by sitting in the wagon he balances the weight and thereby contributes to the plowing being done. Both of these people have transgressed the biblical commandment and hence they are liable for lashes, the biblical penalty applicable to one who has transgressed a negative commandment. When the mishnah says that one “receives the forty [lashes]” it is expressing that one has transgressed a biblical commandment. Rabbi Meir holds that only the one who actually leads the wagon is liable. Evidently, he holds that the one who sits in the wagon does not contribute to the plowing and is therefore not liable.", + "[The tying of] a third [animal different from the two already harnessed to a wagon] to the straps [of those animals] is prohibited. In this case two animals of the same species have already been yoked together when someone yokes a third animal, different from the first two. This is prohibited. Assumedly, one might have thought that this was not prohibited because the Torah only mentions one who yokes two different animals together. The mishnah comes to teach us that even three (two of which are the same) are prohibited." + ], + [ + "They may not tie a horse neither to the sides of a wagon [drawn by oxen] nor behind the wagon, nor [may they tie] a Libyan donkey to [a wagon drawn by] camels. There are really two laws in this section. First of all, the prohibition of kilayim includes tying an animal to the opposite side of a wagon drawn by a different species. One might have thought that since only the front animal is drawing the wagon, this does not create a situation of kilayim, therefore the mishnah teaches that it does. The other halakhah is that Libyan donkeys cannot be attached to a wagon drawn by camels. Obviously these are different species, so we might ask what the mishnah is teaching. Albeck explains that we might have thought that when attached to the same wagon these animals don’t really pull together, and hence it is not prohibited. Therefore, the mishnah teaches that even though this is not an effective work arrangement, it is nevertheless prohibited.", + "Rabbi Judah says: all [mules] born from horses, even though their father is a donkey, are permitted one with another. Likewise [mules] born from donkey, even though their father is a horse, are permitted one with another. But [mules] born from a horse with [mules] born from donkeys are prohibited one with another. According to Rabbi Judah, when determining the species of an animal, we follow the mother, just as we do when determining the Jewishness of a human being. Thus the offspring of a female horse is a horse, even if its father was a donkey. Such a mule can be yoked with the offspring of a female horse and male horse. The same holds true in the opposite scenario. However, a mule born to a female horse and a mule born to a female donkey cannot be yoked together because they are of different species." + ], + [ + "Introduction This mishnah continues to deal with mules and whether they can be yoked together. It then goes on to categorize a few other animals as a “hayyah,” wild animals. We shall see below why such categorization has halakhic ramifications.", + "Mules of uncertain parentage are forbidden [one with another,] If it is unclear whether a given mule was born of a female horse or a female donkey then it can’t be yoked together with a different mule, lest the two be of different species. Since the prohibition of kilayim is “deoraita,” or toraitic origin, in cases of doubt we rule strictly.", + "And a ramakh is permitted. A rammakh is a mule whose mother is known to be a horse. Hence it is permitted to yoke this type of mule with another ramakh. Albeck provides an alternative explanation to the “ramakh” halakhah. The ramakh does not actually aid in pulling the plow, and therefore there is no prohibition of yoking it with another animal.", + "Wild man-like creatures are [in the category of] hayyah. Wild man-like creatures are probably a type of monkey. The mishnah categorizes this animal as a “hayyah” a wild beast. Hence the laws of kilayim are applicable to it. Were we to have categorized it as a “man” the laws of kilayim would not have applied.", + "Rabbi Yose says: they cause impurity in a tent like a human being. Rabbi Yose says that despite the fact that this animal is a “hayyah” and not considered like a human, when it comes to transmitting impurity in a tent, the animal is treated like a person. This means that if something overhangs this dead animal and another person, impurity goes from the carcass and impurifies the human being.", + "The hedgehog and the bush-mole are [in the category of] hayyah. The hedgehog and the bush-mole are categorized as “hayyah.” Again, this means that the laws of kilayim do apply to them. Without this mishnah we might have thought that they belong to the category of “sheretz,” creepy crawly thing, to which the laws of kilayim do not apply.", + "The bush-mole: Rabbi Yose says in the name of Bet Shammai: an olive's size [of its carcass] renders a person carrying it unclean, and a lentil’s size [of its carcass] renders a person touching it unclean. Rabbi Yose says that according to Bet Shammai, the bush-mole is a doubtful hayyah/doubtful sheretz, meaning that it might be either and we just don’t know how to categorize it. Since its categorization is doubtful, the stricter impurity laws of both categories apply. What this means is that an olive’s worth of its flesh transmits impurity in a tent, as does the flesh of the carcass of a hayyah (or behemah). However, a lentil’s worth of its flesh transmits impurity to one who touches it, as does the flesh of the carcass of a sheretz." + ], + [ + "The wild ox [it is in the category of] behemah. But Rabbi Yose says: [it is in the category] of hayyah.
The dog [it is in the category of] hayyah. But Rabbi Yose says: [it is in the category] of behemah.
The pig [it is in the category of] behemah.
The wild donkey [it is in the category of] hayyah.
The elephant and the monkey [they are in the category of] hayyah.
A human being is permitted to draw, plow, or lead with any of them.
This mishnah classifies various animals into “behemah” domesticated beast or “hayyah” wild animal.
Section one: The wild ox is considered a behemah. This means that one can yoke it together with a domesticated ox. Rabbi Yose disagrees and holds that it is in the category of hayyah, and therefore cannot be yoked together with its domesticated cousin.
Section two: A dog, according to the first opinion, is a hayyah, whereas Rabbi Yose considers it to be a behemah. (It does seem that there are some dogs which are more “domesticated” than others ours was much more on the hayyah side, despite our best efforts to make it into a behemah). We should note that even if a dog is domesticated it couldn’t be yoked together with another species. This causes us to ask why the mishnah bothers classifying this and the other animals that appear in the next three sections. According to the Tosefta, the reason for this classification is that if a person sells all of his “behemot” or all of his “hayyot” we need to know which animals he has sold. It also seems to me that just as zoologists like categorizing animals and botanists like categorizing plants, rabbis liked categorizing as well.
Section six: A human being cannot be considered “kilayim” with any animal. This means that a human being can draw a wagon, or plow with any animal. The words “or lead” are probably a mistake and shouldn’t be here because animals don’t generally lead other animals." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThe final chapter of Kilayim deals with kilayim of clothes, or shatnez, as it is called by both Leviticus and Deuteronomy.\nOur mishnah also mentions several other halakhot which apply only to wool or linen, the two materials subject to the laws of kilayim.", + "Nothing is forbidden on account of kilayim except [a mixture of] wool and linen. Deuteronomy 22:11 defines “shatnez” as being wool and linen. Hence only a mixture of wool and linen is prohibited. Wool and cotton, for instance, is not prohibited.", + "No [clothing material] is subject to uncleanness by scale disease except wool or linen. The only types of clothes subject to impurity through “scale disease” (sometimes called leprosy) are wool and linen (see Leviticus 13:47).", + "Priests do not wear any materials to serve in the Temple except for wool and linen. The priestly clothing was made only of linen and wool (see Exodus 39:27-29). It is interesting that while such a mixture was generally prohibited, while the priests were serving in the Temple, this is precisely the clothing that they would wear.", + "Camel’s wool with sheep’s wool, that have been mixed together: if the greater part is camel’s wool, it is permitted [to mix it with linen], but if the greater part is sheep’s wool, it is forbidden; if it is half and half, it is forbidden. Camel’s wool is not prohibited in kilayim, only sheep’s wool is prohibited. Therefore, if camel’s wool is mixed up with sheep’s wool such that it becomes impossible to separate them, it is permitted to use the mixture with linen if the quantity of camel’s wools is more than the quantity of sheep’s wool. If the quantity of sheep’s wool is greater than it is prohibited. If they are equal the mixture is still prohibited, because we always tend to be strict in cases of doubt when the prohibition is from the Torah, as is the prohibition of kilayim.", + "The same applies to hemp and linen mixed together. Hemp can be mixed with wool, whereas linen cannot. So if hemp and linen are mixed together, the mixture can be mixed with wool if the hemp is the majority, but if the linen is the majority or equal to the hemp, it is forbidden." + ], + [ + "Silk and floss-silk do not come under the prohibition of kilayim, but are prohibited on account of appearance. Silk is not prohibited under the category of kilayim, meaning that one who wears a garment in which silk and wool or silk and linen are mixed together has not transgressed the biblical prohibition. Nevertheless, because such mixtures look like kilayim, they are prohibited “derabanan”, a prohibition of rabbinic origin.", + "Mattresses and pillows do not come under the prohibition of kilayim, as long as his flesh does not come into [immediate] contact with them. The Torah only prohibits wearing kilayim and not using kilayim for other purposes. Hence, mattresses and pillows which one lies on and doesn’t wear can have in them mixtures of wool and linen. However, if the mattress or pillow comes in direct contact with his skin, then it is prohibited because this is too close to “wearing.”", + "There is no [permissibility for the] temporary [wearing] of kilayim. It is prohibited to even temporarily put on kilayim as clothing. We might have thought, perhaps, that unless someone really goes out with such clothing on, that it would be permitted, or at least not forbidden, and therefore the mishnah teaches that one who puts on a kilayim garment has immediately transgressed the prohibition.", + "Neither may one wear kilayim even on top of ten [garments], even for the purpose of evading taxes. If the garment is being used as clothing, it is prohibited even if it doesn’t come into contact with his skin, for instance, it is an outer piece of clothing and he has other clothing underneath it. This prohibition holds true even if his sole intent in wearing the clothing was to hide it from tax collectors who are coming to assess his property. In such a case he isn’t wearing the garment in order to derive benefit from it as clothing. He is only wearing it in order to smuggle it away from the tax collectors. Nevertheless, because he is wearing it, it is forbidden." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe next five mishnayot begin to catalogue what items made of cloth are subject to the kilayim prohibition. The basic rule is that anything used to cover a person’s body, even temporarily, may be subject to the laws of kilayim. The reason is that the Torah phrases the prohibition as “One may not wear shatnez” (Deuteronomy 22:11). From here the rabbis derive that only “wearing” or anything close to wearing is prohibited.", + "Hand towels, scroll covers, and bath towels do not come under the prohibition of kilayim. Rabbi Eliezer prohibits. All of these items are not used to cover a person’s body. They are not “worn.” Therefore they are not subject to the laws of kilayim.", + "Barbers’ covers are subject to the prohibition of kilayim. The cloths that the barber puts on the person getting his/her hair cut are in actuality temporary clothing. Since they are in a sense clothing, they are subject to the laws of kilayim." + ], + [ + "Shrouds for the dead, and the packsaddle of a donkey are not subject to the law of kilayim. Shrouds for a dead person can be made out of kilayim, because a dead person does not have to observe the laws of the Torah. A packsaddle is made to sit on and not to put it on oneself. Leviticus 19:19 says that one should not “put upon oneself kilayim” and therefore the packsaddle is not subject to the laws of kilayim.", + "One may not [however] place a packsaddle [made of kilayim] on one’s shoulder even for the purpose of carrying dung out on it. However, since the Torah states that the prohibition is to “put upon oneself,” putting the packsaddle on one’s shoulder is prohibited, even though this would not normally be considered “wearing.” We see here that the rabbis seem to be mediating between Deuteronomy states, “Do not wear” and Leviticus which states “Do not put upon oneself.”" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with a mechant who may be selling kilayim garments and in the process of selling them may end up wearing them as well.", + "Sellers of clothes may sell [clothes made of kilayim] in accordance with their custom, as long as they do have not the intention in the sun, [to protect themselves] from the sun, or in the rain [to protect themselves] from the rain. Evidently, while clothes-sellers were traveling, they would sometimes wear the clothes that they intended to sell. They would do this either to transport the clothes from place to place (they were peddlers) or to show people how the clothes looked, or both. The mishnah rules that the traveling clothes salesman may wear kilayim, as long as his intention in wearing them is not to use them as covering, either in the summer because of the sun or in the winter because of the rain. The discerning reader will note that this mishnah seems to disagree with mishnah two, where we learned that one cannot wear kilayim in order to smuggle them away from the tax collectors. In both cases a person wears a garment not because he wants to wear it as clothing but for some other reason. While mishnah two prohibited this, our mishnah permits it, as long as he doesn’t intend to also use it as clothing.", + "The scrupulous hang [such materials or garments] on a stick over their backs. Those merchants who didn’t want to take advantage of the leniency in the above section, would not wear the kilayim clothes. Rather they would hang the clothes behind them on a stick." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah discusses a tailor who may have materials made of wool and linen sitting on his lap waiting to be sewn.", + "Tailors may sew [materials which are kilayim] in their usual way, as long as they do have not the intention in the sun, [to protect themselves] from the sun, or in the rain [to protect themselves] from the rain. As in yesterday’s mishnah concerning the clothes salesman, the rules of kilayim also do not apply to a tailor who has various types of material resting on his lap waiting to be sewn. Again, this is prohibited if he intends to use the material as protection from sun or rain.", + "The scrupulous sew [such materials as they are laid] on the ground. Again, similar to yesterday’s mishnah, those who are more religiously scrupulous would not take advantage of such a leniency. Rather, they would lay the materials on the ground while they were waiting to be sewn." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah teaches that there are certain items that are assumed to have mixtures of wool and linen and therefore they need to be checked before they can be worn.", + "The Birrus blanket or Brindisian blanket, or Dalmatian cloth, or felt shoes, may not be worn until one has examined them. Evidently, it was typical that these wool garments or shoes would be sewn using linen thread. Hence, before one wears one of these types of clothing, he must first check them to make sure they do not consist of kilayim.", + "Rabbi Yose says: ones that come from the coast or from lands beyond the sea, do not require examination, since the presumption with regard to them is [that they are sewn] with hemp. Rabbi Yose says that the above law does not apply to such objects if they come from the coast of Israel or from “the lands beyond the sea” a term which refers to the lands lying to the west of Israel (Greece, Rome etc.). In those lands, such items are sewn with hemp thread, to which the laws of kilayim do not apply, as we learned above in mishnah one. The suspicion is only with regard to such items that come from Israel, or from the east of Israel (Syria and Persia) or perhaps from the South (Egypt).", + "Felt-lined shoes are not subject to the laws of kilayim. There are two explanations for this clause. The first is that we are not concerned lest felt-lined shoes have linen mixed in with them. In other words, only if one knows that they have linen are these shoes prohibited. The second interpretation is that this shoe does have both wool and linen in it, but it doesn’t have a heel. Since it doesn’t have a heel it is not subject to the laws of kilayim." + ], + [ + "Only that which is spun or woven is forbidden under the law of kilayim, as it says, “You shall not wear shatnez” (Deuteronomy 22:1, that which is shua (combed) tavui (spun) and nuz (woven).
Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: [the word shaatnez means that] he [the transgressor] is perverted (and causes his father in heaven to avert himself [from him].
When referring to kilayim, the Torah uses the word “shatnez.” Our mishnah understands this word as an acronym and derives halakhah from the word.
Section two: \"Naloz\" means to \"pervert\" or \"corrupt\" and it is a pun on the end of the word shaatnez. The transgressor has perverted God's laws, and by doing thus he causes God to pervert His path from him (meliz, another form of naloz)." + ], + [ + "Introduction This mishnah teaches various cases in which the kilayim prohibition applies despite the fact that the wool and linen may not seem to actually be woven together. According to some commentators, some of these prohibitions are only “derabanan,” of rabbinic status and not of toraitic status.", + "Felted materials [can be] prohibited because of kilayim, since they are combed. Felt is made from wool that is beat and not spun. It is prohibited to attach it to linen even without weaving them together because the wool and linen are combed together. According to one opinion in the Talmud, this prohibition is only derabanan from the Torah the garment is prohibited only if it is combed, spun and ten woven. However, the rabbis added that even if only one of these processes has taken place, the garment is prohibited because of kilayim.", + "It is prohibited to attach a string of wool (to linen material, since this resembles weaving. A pif (or piv) is a string that falls from a garment when it is being woven and that the weavers stick into the sides of the garment when giving it to the purchaser. If the woven material is of linen, one cannot put a pif of wool on it and vice versa. This looks too much as if they had been woven together.", + "Rabbi Yose says: it is forbidden to use cords of purple [wool to tie round a loose linen garment], since before he ties it, he stitches it on. Since this wool belt is stitched to the linen garment and not just tied around the garment, it does violate the laws of kilayim.", + "One may not tie a strip of woolen material with one of linen material for the purpose of girdling one’s loins, even if there is a leather strap between the two. Tying a belt made of woolen material together with one of linen material is prohibited even if a leather strap is sewn between the wool and the linen in order to separate them. The reason that this is still prohibited is that when he will eventually tie the ends of the belt together when he ties it around his waste." + ], + [ + "Weaver’s mark’s or launderer’s marks [can be] prohibited because of kilayim. In mishnaic times weavers and launderers would put strings on the sides of clothing to help identify to whom it belonged. If these strings were of linen and the garment was of wool, or vice versa, then they are prohibited because of kilayim.", + "One who sticks one thread [through material], this does not constitute a connection, nor does [the prohibition of] kilayim apply and one who unties [such a connection] on Shabbat is exempt. The next three sections deal with the question of how many stitches are needed for two garments to be considered sewn together. If one sticks a needle once into two garments and brings the string out on the other side, the two garments are not yet considered to be sewn together. There are three ramifications to this: 1) if one garment is impure the other has not yet become impure; 2) if one is wool and one is linen they are still not considered kilayim; 3) one who undoes this string on Shabbat is not liable for the prohibited act of “untying” (see Shabbat 7:2).", + "If one made its two ends come out on the same side [of the material], this constitutes a connection, and it comes under the prohibition of kilayim, and one who unties such a connection on Shabbat is liable. In this case one pulled the needle through and then brought it back up again, so that the two heads of the string are sticking out from the same side. Now the two garments are considered tied together. If one becomes impure, the other is impure as well. If one is wool and one is linen then they are prohibited because of kilayim. And if one undoes such a string on Shabbat, he has transgressed the prohibition of “untying.”", + "Rabbi Judah said: [the prohibition does not apply] until one has made three stitches. Rabbi Judah says that the two garments are not considered connected until he brings the string across three times.", + "A sack and a basket [one having a strip of woolen material attached to it, and the other a strip of linen] combine to form kilayim. If there is a piece of wool attached to a sack and a piece of linen attached to a large basket and then one attaches the sack to the basket, the wool and linen join to become kilayim. Congratulations! We have finished Kilayim! It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. Kilayim overall was about preserving God’s world as it was created. There are many lessons that we could draw from this fascinating prohibition, but I think that the most important one is that we must have respect for creation and while we can intervene and add our own hand to the act of creation, we must have limits as well. Some of the massive environmental damage that we are only now beginning to be aware of is a result of our not respecting any limits to our own power. I hope that the through all the myriads of details in this tractate, a larger message is allowed to shine through. Tomorrow we begin Tractate Sheviit." + ] + ] + ] + }, + "schema": { + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה כלאים", + "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Kilayim", + "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Kilayim", + "nodes": [ + { + "heTitle": "הקדמה", + "enTitle": "Introduction" + }, + { + "heTitle": "", + "enTitle": "" + } + ] + } +} \ No newline at end of file