bar

HALAKHAH: Also ḥallah? Is ḥallah due for demay? Did we not state: “Ḥallah of the unobservant and food containing heave are free from demay.” Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: This is from the House of Shammai. We have stated accordingly: “Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Simeon that the House of Shammai obligate for ḥallah and the House of Hillel exempt it.” Did the House of Shammai include seed goods? But he who buys for sowing or animal feed, flour for tanning or oil for lighting, is he not free from demay? But it must be for somebody who kneads his dough with fruit juice. Did not Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina say that this follows Rebbi Eleazar ben Jehudah from Bartota, hence it does not follow the rabbis. But it agrees with Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, one case for him who works in purity and one case for him who works in impurity. But what following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, in both cases if he works in purity? It must be that he is a guest. Was it not stated: “He who is trustworthy for purities is trustworthy for tithes?” Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismaël stated and said: That is, if one is his guest, but for the public he is not trustworthy unless he accepts it publicly. And here we deal with the public.

Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: He has to recite five benedictions. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: He subsumes them all in one benediction.

If somebody had 100 figs, 50 large ones and 50 small ones. If he takes from the large ones, should he take nine? If he takes from the small ones, should he take eleven? If he takes ten large ones, there might be one profane among them and we would worry lest perhaps he use that one to make it heave of the tithe for another place, but it is written (Num. 18:26): “The heave of the Eternal, tithe from tithe,” not profane from tithe. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, he stipulates and says, the tithe due from this produce should be fixed from the tip of each stem und continue until it reaches; in each of the ten there is heave of the tithe and a tiny bit of profane.

In addition, from the following: Rebbi Zeïra said, Abba the Anatolian bought produce from an Aramean; he came before Rebbi Judah ben Levi who sent his son Menaḥem to put it in order; he gave him his tithes. When he returned, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi met him and said, who else but your father would do such a thing? The arguments of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi are inverted. There, he says that he who buys loose produce from a Gentile, separates heave and heave of the tithe as a matter of practice, gives them to the tribe, and receives money from the tribe; and here he says so! Rebbi Abba bar Zamina said before Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Simon does not say so, but when he returned, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi met him and said, this does not belong to your father. Rebbi Zeïra was offended.

Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, three may tithe without permission: He whose ṭevel was mixed with profane produce. And he who buys from the division of the Samaritans. Rebbi Zeïra said, this implies that he does not take money from the tribe. If you say that he takes money from the tribe, he tithed with permission!

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: They declared a pot to be of doubtful status. But did we not state: “A pot with a hole sanctifies in the vineyard, a pot without a hole does not sanctify in the vineyard.” Because of doubt.

Just as you say, “from certain produce for demay, it is heave that should not be eaten unless heave and tithes were taken for it,” should one say so also for “from one demay for other demay?” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac, this means that a case of doubtful dema‘ is like a case of doubt about heave of the tithe from demay; it is free from the rules of certain produce.

Just as you say, “from certain produce for demay, it is heave that should not be eaten unless heave and tithes were taken for it,” should one say so also for “from one demay for other demay?” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac, this means that a case of doubtful dema‘ is like a case of doubt about heave of the tithe from demay; it is free from the rules of certain produce.

“ If a Cohen sold a field to an Israel on condition that the tithes should be his, the tithes are his. If he dies, his sons have no right to the tithes. ‘For me and my sons, for me and my heirs,’ his sons have the tithes, his heirs have the tithes.” Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom asked before Rebbi Yose: So far only for heirs whose claim is from the Torah? Even for heirs whose claim is not from the Torah!

“ That all tithes should be mine as long as you own it, he gets its tithes as long as the buyer owns it.” When he sold it to a third party, he has no tithes. If the buyer then bought it back from the third party, Rebbi Ḥiyya states that he has no tithes, Rebbi Hoshaia states that the tithes are his. This disagreement turns out like the other disagreement, as we have stated there “that he who divorces his wife and then remarries her, remarries her on the basis of the first ketubah.” Rebbi Ḥanin stated before Rebbi La: Two Amoraïm, one says for ketubah but not for individual stipulations, and the other says, both for ketubah and individual stipulations. For him who says, for ketubah but not for individual stipulations, he has the tithes. For him who says, both for ketubah and for individual stipulations, he has no tithes. But did we not state: “If somebody received (as sharecropper) from the daughter of a Cohen, she has the tithes. If she married an Israel, they split the tithes. If she was widowed or divorced, she returns to her prior status.” There when he sold, here when he received. But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: “When she sold?” Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, there it left the power of both parties; here, it left the power of the seller but not that of the buyer.

“A Cohen who sold a field to an Israel on condition that the tithes be his for four or five years can oppose the buyer’s planting it as a vineyard, sowing woad, or turning it into a field of reeds. Mine forever, he cannot oppose the buyer’s planting it as a vineyard, sowing woad, or turning it into a field of reeds.” There came a case before Rebbi Aḥa bar Ulla and he obligated him to turn over to him one tenth of the reeds.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, that is only if most of what he takes in comes from his own.

Rebbi Hoshaia had made a proviso for certain produce. One woman cooked vegetables she had forgotten to put in order. She came to Rebbi Hoshaia who sent Zavdi ben Levi to put it in order for him and for her. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked, would Zavdi ben Levi not have to give Rebbi Hoshaia property rights on these vegetables? Rebbi Zeïra asked, where do we hold? If his proviso was meant for him and for others, he does not have to give him property rights on the vegetable. If his proviso was not meant for him and for others, he has to give him property rights on the vegetable. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: It was answered, Zavdi ben Levi did not give Rebbi Hoshaia property rights on the vegetable.

Rebbi Hoshaia had made a proviso for certain produce. One woman cooked vegetables she had forgotten to put in order. She came to Rebbi Hoshaia who sent Zavdi ben Levi to put it in order for him and for her. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked, would Zavdi ben Levi not have to give Rebbi Hoshaia property rights on these vegetables? Rebbi Zeïra asked, where do we hold? If his proviso was meant for him and for others, he does not have to give him property rights on the vegetable. If his proviso was not meant for him and for others, he has to give him property rights on the vegetable. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: It was answered, Zavdi ben Levi did not give Rebbi Hoshaia property rights on the vegetable.

Rebbi Yannai said, he must remember his proviso. Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, he must whisper with his lips.

The words of the rabbis disagree since Rebbi Samuel bar Rebbi Isaac said: Rebbi and Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah were guests of a private person. Evil rumors told the latter, watch out, they are suspecting you! He sat near them and was watching them. They pretended to throw food against each other and in that way were putting the food in order. Does he not desire their satisfaction? He does, but he does not want to be suspected.

There, we have stated: “Is somebody buys wine from the Samaritans.” It was stated: “Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon forbid it, for the wine bag may spring a leak and it will turn out retroactively that he drank ṭevel.” Is our Mishnah not following Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon? Rebbi Jacob bar Idi said, all agree that the cup is at its place.

Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: It is a stipulation of the Court that the heave of the tithe should be from the worker and the Second Tithe from the employer.

Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, for the first basket he transgresses a commandment, for the second a commandment and a prohibition. For the first basket he transgresses a commandment since he gave both names simultaneously, and for the second a commandment and a prohibition since he gave both names simultaneously and he put the Second Tithe of the first basket before the First Tithe of the second basket.

This is the Mishnah: “Their tithes are tithes for each basket in the other one, he gave it a name,” because he declared both names at the same time. One after the other you accept only the very first version. Rebbi Abuna said, the Sages agree with Rebbi Meïr about him who says “this heave substitutes for Second” (that he is guilty). “This animal instead of well-being offerings,” he is obligated for two since he declared two names at the same time; hence, one after the other you accept only the very first version. Not so, said Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac who said in the name of Rav Huna: “This one shall be a substitute for a burnt offering,” he may retract that within the time for speech. That is, if he wants to retract, there if he wants to add. If one said, “this is heave,” even within the time of speech he cannot retract. A person can be asked about his dedication but nobody can be asked about his heave.

Rebbi Mana said, they differ with Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh. As he stated: “Ṭevel mixed with profane produce, if it can be provided from another place, one takes it out in proportion. Otherwise, Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh says, he gives a name to the heave of the tithe and takes it out by 101.” Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, explain it with kinds one cannot take out. Rebbi Hillel ben Pazi asked: Why can he not crack them? Rebbi Jonah said, is one permitted to crack them? Did we not state: “If the nuts were cracked,” in the past. That means, not to start out with.

“Wheat and zĕwānîn are not kilaim one with the other.” Hence, with barley they would constitute kilaim. “Wheat and zĕwānîn are not kilaim one with the other;” could anybody err about something that is not food and state it as kilaim? Rebbi Abba bar Zavda said, because there are places where they are collected as food for pigeons. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda said, this follows Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there: “If somebody lets thorns grow in his vineyard, they become ‘sanctified’, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. But the Sages say, they do not become ‘sanctified’.” Rabbi Abbahu said, the reason of Rebbi Eliezer is that at some places in Arabia one stores them for camels. Does this imply that the Sages think that there are no places in Arabia where one stores them for the camels? Let them check it out! The Sages say, where one stores them they are forbidden, but at places where one does not store them they are permitted. But Rebbi Abba bar Zavda cannot follow Rebbi Eliezer! There, people do not transport horns from place to place. But here, people do transport zewānîn from place to place.

“Wheat and zĕwānîn are not kilaim one with the other.” Hence, with barley they would constitute kilaim. “Wheat and zĕwānîn are not kilaim one with the other;” could anybody err about something that is not food and state it as kilaim? Rebbi Abba bar Zavda said, because there are places where they are collected as food for pigeons. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda said, this follows Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there: “If somebody lets thorns grow in his vineyard, they become ‘sanctified’, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. But the Sages say, they do not become ‘sanctified’.” Rabbi Abbahu said, the reason of Rebbi Eliezer is that at some places in Arabia one stores them for camels. Does this imply that the Sages think that there are no places in Arabia where one stores them for the camels? Let them check it out! The Sages say, where one stores them they are forbidden, but at places where one does not store them they are permitted. But Rebbi Abba bar Zavda cannot follow Rebbi Eliezer! There, people do not transport horns from place to place. But here, people do transport zewānîn from place to place.

“Wheat and zĕwānîn are not kilaim one with the other.” Hence, with barley they would constitute kilaim. “Wheat and zĕwānîn are not kilaim one with the other;” could anybody err about something that is not food and state it as kilaim? Rebbi Abba bar Zavda said, because there are places where they are collected as food for pigeons. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda said, this follows Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there: “If somebody lets thorns grow in his vineyard, they become ‘sanctified’, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. But the Sages say, they do not become ‘sanctified’.” Rabbi Abbahu said, the reason of Rebbi Eliezer is that at some places in Arabia one stores them for camels. Does this imply that the Sages think that there are no places in Arabia where one stores them for the camels? Let them check it out! The Sages say, where one stores them they are forbidden, but at places where one does not store them they are permitted. But Rebbi Abba bar Zavda cannot follow Rebbi Eliezer! There, people do not transport horns from place to place. But here, people do transport zewānîn from place to place.

Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi asked before Rebbi Jeremiah: Is our Mishnah from Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose? As it was stated: “Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose says in the name of his father that one may take heave from wine on vinegar but not from vinegar on wine. If somebody transgressed, his heave is heave. Rebbi says that wine and vinegar are two distinct kinds and one does not give heave nor does one tithe from one on the other.” He was looking at him. He said to him, what are you staring at me? Bring a lash for yourself; there it is for tithing, here it is for kilaim. Rebbi Jonah said, he should not have stared at him since the earlier rabbis wanted to understand this matter and understood that there it refers to tithing but here to kilaim.

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, they found written in the notebook of Rebbi Hillel ben Rebbi Vales; Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, they found written on the wall of Rebbi Hillel ben Rebbi Vales: Beans, πίσον, chick peas, mlwt’, krpwnh, climbing beans.

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, they found written in the notebook of Rebbi Hillel ben Rebbi Vales; Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, they found written on the wall of Rebbi Hillel ben Rebbi Vales: Beans, πίσον, chick peas, mlwt’, krpwnh, climbing beans.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yudan bar Menasheh said: The opinion of the Sages is that one takes a small piece from the pericarp of a green melon and plants it and it grows to a water melon. One takes a small piece from the pericarp of a water melon and plants it and it grows to a sweet melon. Rebbi Jehudah says, it in itself is kilaim. One takes a small piece from the pericarp of a water melon and a small piece from the pericarp of an apple and puts them into one cavity where they unite and become kilaim. Therefore it is called “apple melon” in the Greek language.

Birds are not mentioned in the Mishnah. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is inferred from [the statement of] Bar Dalaiah: “Chicken with pheasant, chicken with peacock, even though they look similar, are kilaim one with the other.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said that Rebbi stated for us a complete Mishnah: “The same applies to wild animals and birds.” Rebbi Jonah said, we need that of Rebbi Joḥanan, we state here “wild animal” and explain it there. We state here “domesticated animal” and explain it there. Birds, we stated there and explain it here. Rebbi Jose said, is that correct? It comes to tell you that birds are forbidden in kilaim!

It was stated in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: “The Gentile may sow and wear kilaim, but he may not mate his animals as kilaim or graft his tree kilaim.” Why? Because about these, it is written “by their kinds.” But is it not also written for grasses “by their kinds?” It is not written for the commandment, only at the realization. If this is so, why was Earth cursed? Rebbi Judan bar Shalom said, because it transgressed the orders of the Holy One, praise to Him! (Gen. 1:11) “The earth should produce lawns, grasses producing seed,” but it produced only (Gen. 1:12) “lawns, grasses producing seed by their kinds.” Rebbi Phineas said, it enjoyed the commandment and added shade trees. In the opinion of Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom, Earth was justly cursed. In the opinion of Rebbi Phineas, why was Earth cursed? Like a man who said: The breastnipples should be cursed that this one suckled from. This follows Rebbi Nathan: Three stood in judgment and four went out cursed, (Gen. 3:17) “Earth is cursed because of you.”

It was stated in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: “The Gentile may sow and wear kilaim, but he may not mate his animals as kilaim or graft his tree kilaim.” Why? Because about these, it is written “by their kinds.” But is it not also written for grasses “by their kinds?” It is not written for the commandment, only at the realization. If this is so, why was Earth cursed? Rebbi Judan bar Shalom said, because it transgressed the orders of the Holy One, praise to Him! (Gen. 1:11) “The earth should produce lawns, grasses producing seed,” but it produced only (Gen. 1:12) “lawns, grasses producing seed by their kinds.” Rebbi Phineas said, it enjoyed the commandment and added shade trees. In the opinion of Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom, Earth was justly cursed. In the opinion of Rebbi Phineas, why was Earth cursed? Like a man who said: The breastnipples should be cursed that this one suckled from. This follows Rebbi Nathan: Three stood in judgment and four went out cursed, (Gen. 3:17) “Earth is cursed because of you.”

What are we talking about? If he intended it for seed then even one grain of wheat is forbidden. If to mix in, it is forbidden to mix. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Abba bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rav: He who takes out impurities from his neighbor’s heap has to give him good grain in their stead. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that one is forbidden to mix in; if you say that one is permitted to mix them back in, why require good grain instead?

What are we talking about? If he intended it for seed then even one grain of wheat is forbidden. If to mix in, it is forbidden to mix. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Abba bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rav: He who takes out impurities from his neighbor’s heap has to give him good grain in their stead. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that one is forbidden to mix in; if you say that one is permitted to mix them back in, why require good grain instead?

If one sold wheat as [standard] good quality and it turned out to be sifted, may he take out the value of that quarter? The words of the rabbis say that he cannot take out the value of that quarter, for Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Abba bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Rav: He who takes out impurities from his neighbor’s grain has to give him good grain in their stead. If he removed one and one half quarters, may he take out the value of that quarter? Rebbi Ḥinena and Rebbi Mana. Rebbi Ḥinena said, he takes it out. Rebbi Mana said, he does not take it out, because he can say to him, if you had returned it to me, I would have bundled it for the Saracens who would have bought it; what that buyer sees is what he buys.

If one sold wheat as [standard] good quality and it turned out to be sifted, may he take out the value of that quarter? The words of the rabbis say that he cannot take out the value of that quarter, for Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Abba bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Rav: He who takes out impurities from his neighbor’s grain has to give him good grain in their stead. If he removed one and one half quarters, may he take out the value of that quarter? Rebbi Ḥinena and Rebbi Mana. Rebbi Ḥinena said, he takes it out. Rebbi Mana said, he does not take it out, because he can say to him, if you had returned it to me, I would have bundled it for the Saracens who would have bought it; what that buyer sees is what he buys.

It is a condition of Joshua that one may collect grasses everywhere except in a field of fenugreek. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman: The Mishnah deals with him who sowed for sheaves. But did we not state: “One is not required to weed … fenugreek in which grasses appeared?” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in his own name: “When it grew for seeds.” Rebbi Yose said, did Joshua come only to help sinners? If he committed a sin, it is forbidden as robbery, if he did not commit a sin it is permitted in respect to robbery. Hence, there is no difference whether he sowed for seeds or for sheaves. But did we not state: “One is not required to weed … fenugreek in which grasses appeared?” If he intends to use the grasses, one should oblige him to weed! Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Miasha: He would be happy if they were torn out and lying before him. Rebbi Yose did not say so, but in the end he approves that they should be torn out and lying before him. But then, if somebody found kilaim in a vineyard, they should be forbidden as robbery since in the end he desires that they should be torn out and lie before him! There, he has the means to bring it in, here he does not have the means to bring it in. Rav Naḥman said that Rebbi Mana asked: Think about it, if he had another field of fenugreek close by, then he has the means to bring it in! The words of the rabbis disagree, since Rebbi Zeriqan said in the name of the House of Yannai: All aftergrowth is forbidden except for that which appears on a fallow field, a field ready to be ploughed under, and a vineyard. He should have added, except for a field of fenugreek sown for the production of seeds! Rebbi Yose said, the words of Rebbi Joḥanan support me. It happened that somebody bought a garden plot of vegetables from a Gentile. He came and asked Rebbi Joḥanan, who said to him, go, harvest and sell at the going rate. Rebbi Abbahu objected before Rebbi Joḥanan: Did we not state: “or the threshing place on which many kinds are appearing?” He said to him, that place proves that he does not want them to exist. Could he not have answered, the one is like robbery, the other is permitted with respect to robbery? How can you object based on a scenario where it is forbidden as robbery to a decision in a case which is permitted with respect to robbery? It is as Rebbi Immi said, they were rich in answers. Or it is as Rebbi Nasa said, like a person who has two reasons but he answers only with one of them.

It is a condition of Joshua that one may collect grasses everywhere except in a field of fenugreek. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman: The Mishnah deals with him who sowed for sheaves. But did we not state: “One is not required to weed … fenugreek in which grasses appeared?” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in his own name: “When it grew for seeds.” Rebbi Yose said, did Joshua come only to help sinners? If he committed a sin, it is forbidden as robbery, if he did not commit a sin it is permitted in respect to robbery. Hence, there is no difference whether he sowed for seeds or for sheaves. But did we not state: “One is not required to weed … fenugreek in which grasses appeared?” If he intends to use the grasses, one should oblige him to weed! Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Miasha: He would be happy if they were torn out and lying before him. Rebbi Yose did not say so, but in the end he approves that they should be torn out and lying before him. But then, if somebody found kilaim in a vineyard, they should be forbidden as robbery since in the end he desires that they should be torn out and lie before him! There, he has the means to bring it in, here he does not have the means to bring it in. Rav Naḥman said that Rebbi Mana asked: Think about it, if he had another field of fenugreek close by, then he has the means to bring it in! The words of the rabbis disagree, since Rebbi Zeriqan said in the name of the House of Yannai: All aftergrowth is forbidden except for that which appears on a fallow field, a field ready to be ploughed under, and a vineyard. He should have added, except for a field of fenugreek sown for the production of seeds! Rebbi Yose said, the words of Rebbi Joḥanan support me. It happened that somebody bought a garden plot of vegetables from a Gentile. He came and asked Rebbi Joḥanan, who said to him, go, harvest and sell at the going rate. Rebbi Abbahu objected before Rebbi Joḥanan: Did we not state: “or the threshing place on which many kinds are appearing?” He said to him, that place proves that he does not want them to exist. Could he not have answered, the one is like robbery, the other is permitted with respect to robbery? How can you object based on a scenario where it is forbidden as robbery to a decision in a case which is permitted with respect to robbery? It is as Rebbi Immi said, they were rich in answers. Or it is as Rebbi Nasa said, like a person who has two reasons but he answers only with one of them.

It is a condition of Joshua that one may collect grasses everywhere except in a field of fenugreek. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman: The Mishnah deals with him who sowed for sheaves. But did we not state: “One is not required to weed … fenugreek in which grasses appeared?” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in his own name: “When it grew for seeds.” Rebbi Yose said, did Joshua come only to help sinners? If he committed a sin, it is forbidden as robbery, if he did not commit a sin it is permitted in respect to robbery. Hence, there is no difference whether he sowed for seeds or for sheaves. But did we not state: “One is not required to weed … fenugreek in which grasses appeared?” If he intends to use the grasses, one should oblige him to weed! Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Miasha: He would be happy if they were torn out and lying before him. Rebbi Yose did not say so, but in the end he approves that they should be torn out and lying before him. But then, if somebody found kilaim in a vineyard, they should be forbidden as robbery since in the end he desires that they should be torn out and lie before him! There, he has the means to bring it in, here he does not have the means to bring it in. Rav Naḥman said that Rebbi Mana asked: Think about it, if he had another field of fenugreek close by, then he has the means to bring it in! The words of the rabbis disagree, since Rebbi Zeriqan said in the name of the House of Yannai: All aftergrowth is forbidden except for that which appears on a fallow field, a field ready to be ploughed under, and a vineyard. He should have added, except for a field of fenugreek sown for the production of seeds! Rebbi Yose said, the words of Rebbi Joḥanan support me. It happened that somebody bought a garden plot of vegetables from a Gentile. He came and asked Rebbi Joḥanan, who said to him, go, harvest and sell at the going rate. Rebbi Abbahu objected before Rebbi Joḥanan: Did we not state: “or the threshing place on which many kinds are appearing?” He said to him, that place proves that he does not want them to exist. Could he not have answered, the one is like robbery, the other is permitted with respect to robbery? How can you object based on a scenario where it is forbidden as robbery to a decision in a case which is permitted with respect to robbery? It is as Rebbi Immi said, they were rich in answers. Or it is as Rebbi Nasa said, like a person who has two reasons but he answers only with one of them.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: They taught only the surroundings of the vine, hence, not the vine itself. Why? Because it is forbidden for usufruct. But is not the grave also forbidden for usufruct? A grave is not recognizable as forbidden. And is the working space of a vine forbidden for usufruct? This follows Rebbi Ismael, since Rebbi Ismael said that a single vine does not have working space. But is not the grave forbidden for usufruct? A grave is not recognizable as forbidden.

Rebbi Judan said: Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba and Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac disagree. One says, even three in a width of six, the other said, one on one side, the other on the other side, and the third in the middle. We do not know who said what. Since Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, only if there is no dry patch, that means that Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said: One on one side, the other on the other side, and the third in the middle. If the sides were more than the dry patch, it is permitted.

Rebbi Judan said: Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba and Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac disagree. One says, even three in a width of six, the other said, one on one side, the other on the other side, and the third in the middle. We do not know who said what. Since Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, only if there is no dry patch, that means that Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said: One on one side, the other on the other side, and the third in the middle. If the sides were more than the dry patch, it is permitted.

Rebbi Judan said: Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba and Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac disagree. One says, even three in a width of six, the other said, one on one side, the other on the other side, and the third in the middle. We do not know who said what. Since Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, only if there is no dry patch, that means that Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said: One on one side, the other on the other side, and the third in the middle. If the sides were more than the dry patch, it is permitted.

It was stated: “Five things were said about Greek gourd: One may not allow it to cover grains, it brings impurity and stops impurity, its stalk is one hand-breadth, the tiniest amount of it makes forbidden, and to him who makes a vow not to use pumpkins, only Greek gourd is forbidden.” Rebbi Jonah asked, why do we not count “it brings impurity and stops impurity” as two? Bar Qappara stated seven: “One may not allow it to cover grains, it brings impurity, it stops impurity, its stalk is one hand-breadth, one gives it its working space, it is kilaim with Aramean [pumpkin], and kilaim with ash pumpkin.” He did not state that it makes forbidden or anything about making a vow.

HALAKHAH: (Is. 61:11) “Its sown seeds,” the minimum of seeds are two. Rebbi Samuel bar Sisarṭa said, from two you infer four. Just as for two you start at the beginning of six and reduce continuously, so for four you start at the beginning of six and reduce continuously. It is impossible that there should not be a free space to plant in the middle. Rebbi Jonah said, working space joins working space but a kind does not meet another kind to jail it. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: “Its seed, its seeds, its sown seeds.” That follows Rebbi Jehudah, since Rebbi Jehudah said six, “seed, its seed, its seeds, its sown seeds.” Rebbi Ḥaggai said, זרעיה has five letters; everywhere I find ו,י I delete them. This was asked of Rav Huna, the scribe of the assembly, and he said, זרועיה is written plene. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: All inside of six. Cahana in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: All at the outside of six. Then we should state “nine!” Rebbi Tanḥum from Bostra said, that is true. But our Mishnah speaks of a garden bed in the middle of garden beds.

Rebbi Nassa asked: Is it not reasonable that, if the top of the surrounding wall is two hand-breadths wide, one is permitted to sow on it two kinds? Rebbi Nassa asked: If he drew a string in the middle, sowed in half of it, how far can he draw it? From what Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Immi said, “explain it if the walls diminish six,” that means that it may be even less than that. Let us hear from the following: “In depressions that are one hand-breadth deep one may sow three seeds, one on each side and one in the middle.” That means, down to one hand-breadth. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana, Simeon from Nerash in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: They taught “leaning towards a dry spot”.

Rebbi Zeïra said, they made every single hand-breadth on the border wall a domain for itself. Then there should be 25, six on each side of the border wall and one in the middle! Is that so? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac objected: Did we not state that “in a furrow or a water canal one hand-breadth deep one may sow (two) kinds of seeds, one on each side and one in the middle.” Should one not state five, two on each side and one in the middle? That is impossible; the two sides jail the middle one.

Rebbi Zeïra said, they made every single hand-breadth on the border wall a domain for itself. Then there should be 25, six on each side of the border wall and one in the middle! Is that so? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac objected: Did we not state that “in a furrow or a water canal one hand-breadth deep one may sow (two) kinds of seeds, one on each side and one in the middle.” Should one not state five, two on each side and one in the middle? That is impossible; the two sides jail the middle one.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked: Does the border wall save vegetables from melons? If the border wall does not save different kinds of grains that are saved by 10.5 cubits, does this not apply a fortiori to melons that are saved only by twelve cubits? Does planting melon save on top of the border wall? If different kinds of grains that are saved by 10.5 cubits are not saved on top of the border wall, does this not apply a fortiori to melons that are saved by eight cubits? Rebbi Judan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah, said, is that a reasoning a fortiori? It must be as follows: If different kinds of grains that are saved by 12.5 cubits are not saved on top of the border wall, does this not apply a fortiori to melons that are saved only by twelve cubits?

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked: Does the border wall save vegetables from melons? If the border wall does not save different kinds of grains that are saved by 10.5 cubits, does this not apply a fortiori to melons that are saved only by twelve cubits? Does planting melon save on top of the border wall? If different kinds of grains that are saved by 10.5 cubits are not saved on top of the border wall, does this not apply a fortiori to melons that are saved by eight cubits? Rebbi Judan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah, said, is that a reasoning a fortiori? It must be as follows: If different kinds of grains that are saved by 12.5 cubits are not saved on top of the border wall, does this not apply a fortiori to melons that are saved only by twelve cubits?

Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Zeïra and Rebbi Immi, both in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, one said one plants near a fence but not near a border wall, and the other said, a border wall which lost height is in order, hence a fence which lost height is invalid. But we do not know who said what. Since Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One plants near a fence but not near a border wall, this means Rebbi Immi is the one who said that a border wall that lost height is in order, hence a fence which lost height is invalid. Rebbi Yose said, we also did make both statements, that a border wall that lost height is in order, hence a fence that lost height is invalid. One plants near a fence, as we have stated (Mishnah 2:8): “One does sow close to a fallow field, a plowed field, a stone wall, a foot path, a fence ten hand-breadths high.” One does not plant near a border wall, as we have stated (Mishnah 3:2): “In a furrow or a water canal that are one hand-breadth deep one may sow three kinds of seeds, one on each side and one in the middle.” If you say that one may sow close to a border wall, he should sow several rows down in the ditch. The colleagues said before Rebbi Samuel bar Abin: Explain it if the top of the border wall was sown. He said to them, if it is so, let him uproot that stem and sow several rows down in the ditch. Is it not better to uproot one stem and sow several rows down in the ditch?

HALAKHAH: “A vertex, etc.” Bar Qappara stated: He sows in it only one kind.

“One may plant melon”, etc. It was stated: “One may make a small hole in one’s field, one hand-breadth deep, sow in it four seeds, and turn them to the four directions of the compass.” Rebbi Abba bar Cahana, Simeon of Nerash in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: That was taught regarding those which lean towards a dry spot. Rebbi Mana asked, if we deal with those that lean towards a dry spot, should we not state “eight,” two on each of the edges?

Why did they not object to him: If someone keeps single fresh stalks growing to produce seeds, must he not clear around them a bet rova‘ or fence them in by a fence of ten hand-breadths? For a row one is more lenient. Since they did not object to him, it follows that Rebbi Yose thinks that row and square are the same. For Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose the Galilean said in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: He who keeps a single fresh stalk growing to produce seeds must clear around it a bet rova‘ or fence it in by a fence of ten hand-breadths, even if it is the same kind. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya objected before Rebbi Zeïra, did we not state: “If coriander was sown for its seeds, its greens are exempt?” He answered him, coriander is a special case since both the plant and its seeds are eaten.

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

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

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

“ It turns out that concerning kilaim everything less than three hand-breadths is considered closed. From three to four, if what is standing is more than what is torn down it is permitted, but if what is torn down is more than what is standing, it is forbidden. From four hand-breadths to ten cubits, if what is standing is more than what is torn down, it is permitted; but if what is torn down is more than what is standing it is permitted where it is standing, forbidden where it is torn down. Concerning the Sabbath, everything less than three hand-breadths is considered closed. From three to four, and from four hand-breadths to ten cubits, it is permitted if what is standing is more than what is torn down, but forbidden if what is torn down is more than what is standing. More than ten, it is forbidden even though what is standing is more than what is torn down.” Rebbi Ḥananiah, Rebbi Judah bar Pazi, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There is no “from three to four.” There is a hole of three and no place of four! Rebbi Mana objected: Did we not state: “One surrounds with reeds,” does a reed form a place? He said to him, do not object to me from a breach less than three hand-breadths, since anything less than three is considered closed! Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: In any case, since what is standing is more than what is torn down, it is permitted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Just as they disagree here, they disagree about a graveyard. Rebbi Jonah said, one cannot compare these. There, if graves were spaced apart and one moved them together, they would form a graveyard. When they were close together and one spaces them apart, that does not make a graveyard. But here, if they were spaced apart and one moved them closer, that is the disagreement. If they were close and one moved them apart, everybody would agree. But here, what is their disagreement? When one found them close together. Rebbi Simeon said, a landslide fell on them and compressed them. But the Sages say, were they spaced apart and somebody brought them close together?

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is necessary that there be an empty space of four hand-breadths. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, that is, if it is round. But if it is square, it does not need an empty space of four hand-breadths. Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul said, it needs three hand-breadths of dirt on top. Rebbi Yose said, that is, if it is round. But if it is square, it does not need three hand-breadths of dirt on top.

Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Sometimes, the straw is permitted but the grain is forbidden, and sometimes the straw is forbidden and the grain is permitted. How is that? If his sowing was permitted but later he trained the leaves of a vine over it, the straw is permitted but the grain is forbidden If he sowed where it was forbidden and then removed the overhanging growth, the straw is forbidden but the grain is permitted. Rebbi Zeïra inquired: It is understandable that the straw would be permitted but the grain forbidden. If the straw should be forbidden and the grain permitted, it grew while forbidden and you say is is permitted? Rebbi Zeïra follows his own opinion, as Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: An onion from kilaim in a vineyard that he removed from the soil and planted anew is forbidden even if it increases manifold, since growth of what is forbidden can never justify forbidden produce.

The caper bush. The House of Shammai say, it is kilaim in a vineyard but not with grains. The House of Hillel say, it is never kilaim, neither in a vineyard nor with grains. Both agree that it is subject to orlah. Rebbi Ḥinena bar Papa stated: Any plant that branches out from its stem is a tree; from its roots it is a vegetable. They objected: But cabbage forms its leaves from its stem! Here when it is sure, there when it is doubtful.

Rebbi Jehudah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice outside the Land follows him who is lenient. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, there they stated: Practice outside the Land follows him who is lenient.

Rebbi Jehudah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice outside the Land follows him who is lenient. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, there they stated: Practice outside the Land follows him who is lenient.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman, Rebbi Jonathan, in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: He who prunes his vineyard down to less than a hand-breadth subjects it to orlah because of the bad appearance. The Sages say, only if he prunes down to the ground. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, in the name of Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob: He who forms a heap from gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah, is subject to the Great Heave because of the bad appearance. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob in the name of the House of Shammai: A corpse in the public domain induces impurity four cubits around it, to sustain its dignity. Rebbi Mana said, this last statement is in the name of the House of Shammai; Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, all are in the name of the House of Shammai. Rebbi Jonah said, also that which we stated here is because of the bad appearance. If it were not so, what would be the difference whether one stands on the ground or on the terrace?

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman, Rebbi Jonathan, in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: He who prunes his vineyard down to less than a hand-breadth subjects it to orlah because of the bad appearance. The Sages say, only if he prunes down to the ground. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, in the name of Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob: He who forms a heap from gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah, is subject to the Great Heave because of the bad appearance. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob in the name of the House of Shammai: A corpse in the public domain induces impurity four cubits around it, to sustain its dignity. Rebbi Mana said, this last statement is in the name of the House of Shammai; Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, all are in the name of the House of Shammai. Rebbi Jonah said, also that which we stated here is because of the bad appearance. If it were not so, what would be the difference whether one stands on the ground or on the terrace?

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman, Rebbi Jonathan, in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: He who prunes his vineyard down to less than a hand-breadth subjects it to orlah because of the bad appearance. The Sages say, only if he prunes down to the ground. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, in the name of Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob: He who forms a heap from gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah, is subject to the Great Heave because of the bad appearance. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob in the name of the House of Shammai: A corpse in the public domain induces impurity four cubits around it, to sustain its dignity. Rebbi Mana said, this last statement is in the name of the House of Shammai; Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, all are in the name of the House of Shammai. Rebbi Jonah said, also that which we stated here is because of the bad appearance. If it were not so, what would be the difference whether one stands on the ground or on the terrace?

“Two gardens, one above the other, the lower one is made into a vineyard, the upper one is not made into a vineyard. One may sow the upper one until one reaches the airspace of ten.” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeïra, does this not imply that the declivity of a terrace belongs to the below? He said to him, because plants will bend into the airspace of the vineyard. “If the upper one is made into a vineyard but the lower one is not made into a vineyard, one may sow the lower one and the declivity until one reaches the roots of the vines.” Rebbi Yose said, one does not have here “the roots of the vines” but “below three [hand-breadths],” following that which was stated: “roots of madder that enter within four cubits of a vineyard are permitted below three hand-breadths.”

HALAKHAH: Ḥizqiah said, the Mishnah speaks about distances from three to four hand-breadths. Less than three is close up, up to four one has to complete, four is easy for it. How far? Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, up to four cubits. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, up to six cubits. Rebbi Mana said: I went to Caesarea and heard Rebbi Hoshiah bar Shammai in the name of Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar: If there were two papyri, it is permitted. Rebbi Ḥinena said, a statement disagrees: If he usually oversteps, it is forbidden. It was stated thus: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, if he usually oversteps between lattices, it is treated as a single lattice.

HALAKHAH: Ḥizqiah said, the Mishnah speaks about distances from three to four hand-breadths. Less than three is close up, up to four one has to complete, four is easy for it. How far? Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, up to four cubits. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, up to six cubits. Rebbi Mana said: I went to Caesarea and heard Rebbi Hoshiah bar Shammai in the name of Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar: If there were two papyri, it is permitted. Rebbi Ḥinena said, a statement disagrees: If he usually oversteps, it is forbidden. It was stated thus: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, if he usually oversteps between lattices, it is treated as a single lattice.

There, we have stated: “All tied-up water skins are pure except those of Arabs. Rebbi Meïr says, temporarily tied ones are pure, permanently tied ones are impure. Rebbi Yose says, all tied ones are pure.” Some Tannaïm state it inverted. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yasa: Like our Mishnah. Rebbi Yudan said, the indicator of Kelim is Kilaim, for if it were not so, what would be the difference between permanent and temporary tie? In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said: A permanent tie must be cut, a temporary tie does not have to be cut.

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

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

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

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

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

There, we have stated: “One keeps seeds, the plough, and urine three hand-breadths away from a wall.” Rebbi Jeremiah said that Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba raised a question: There, you say that the roots do not expand sideways and here you say, the roots do expand sideways! Rebbi Yose said, in both cases the roots do not expand sideways but they create soft earth and undermine the base of the wall. You can see that because we also stated “urine”. Does urine expand sideways? Rebbi Yose the son of Rebbi Abun explained, did we not also state “the plough”? Does the plough expand sideways?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this is a fine imposed by Rebbi Meïr. Did he act on that, “if somebody draws his vine over somebody else’s grain …”? But what did that person do? When it grows, it grows according to his intention. One person showed his tetradrachma to Rebbi Eleazar who told him that it was good. It turned out to be worthless. This case came before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who fined him according to the following: If somebody shows a denar to the money-changer and it turns out to be bad, [the money-changer] has to pay because he takes a fee. Does Rebbi Eleazar take a fee? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abuna: One who takes it into his hand has the status of one who takes a fee. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun does not say so, but Rebbi Eleazar says that this fine is imposed by the rabbis; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish says the fine is imposed by Rebbi Meïr. When the case came before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, he asked Rebbi Eleazar, who imposed this fine? He [Rebbi Eleazar] said, the rabbis. He [Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish] answered him, go and pay.

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

HALAKHAH: It was stated: “The only difference between a flower pot without a hole and one with a hole regards preparation for impurity.” That is for Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis there are others: A flower pot with a hole sanctifies in a vineyard, one without a hole does not. He who plucks from a flower pot with a hole is guilty, from one without a hole he is free from punishment. A flower pot with a hole cannot prepare plants, one without a hole prepares. Rebbi Yose referred to it as anonymous statement, Rebbi Ḥanina quoted it in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: The Torah extended the purity of growing plants (Lev. 11:37): “If any of their cadavers falls on any sown seed apt to be sown, it is pure.”

It was stated: “The tithes from a flower pot without hole are of practice, its heave does not create dema‘ and one does not owe a fifth for it.” Rebbi Yose asked: May one say “He Who created bread from the earth” for it? Rebbi Jonah asked: Is a gourd considered plucked that one may use it as the cover [of a sukkah]? Rebbi Judah bar Pazi asked: If somebody planted five vines in five pots without holes and arranged them two parallel two and one as tail, can you say this is a vineyard? He may rearrange, does there exist a movable vineyard?

It is written (Deut. 22:9): “Do not sow kilaim in your vineyard.” This teaches us that one is not guilty unless he sows two kinds in the vineyard, the words of Rebbi Josia. Rebbi Jonathan said, even one kind. In the opinion of Rebbi Jonathan it is written (Lev. 19:19) “in your field do not sow kilaim”, why does it say “do not sow kilaim in your vineyard”? The colleagues say, to make it sinful even with one kind. In the opinion of Rebbi Josia, “in your field do not sow kilaim”; why does it say “do not sow kilaim in your vineyard”? The colleagues say, as a warning. If he was warned about “your field”, he is whipped, if he was warned about “your vineyard”, he is whipped. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, to give another measure besides six hand-breadths; here it is four cubits. What are we talking about? If he made a fence on the inside, the vineyard is abolished. If he made a fence on the outside, that is the circumference. But we deal with a field that was a grain field and he cleared four cubits in its midst. This agrees with what Rebbi Ḥanina said, nothing forbidden may form a separation to save. They were of the opinion that what is forbidden does form a separation to prohibit. In the opinion of Rebbi Jonathan it is written (Lev. 19:19): “In your field do not sow kilaim”, why does it say: “Do not sow kilaim in your vineyard”? For that which Rebbi Hila said, if you would say [the Torah] did not say it, what would you say? Or following what Rebbi Zeïra said, “do not sow your vineyard kilaim,” creating your vineyard do not sow kilaim.

Rebbi Zeïra, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Cahana: He who is planting on the Sabbath is guilty because of sowing. Rebbi Zeïra said, he who prunes is like one who plants. If he planted and pruned on the Sabbath, according to Cahana he is guilty on two counts, according to Rebbi Zeïra only on one count. Did not Rebbi Zeïra say the pruner is like the planter, did he say the planter is like the pruner? All was included in the notion of sowing; pruning was singled out for particular stringency. Because pruning was singled out for particular stringency you want to exempt it because of sowing? There is no difference, both according to Cahana and according to Rebbi Zeïra he is guilty on two counts.

Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba said in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina, he who leads kilaim by voice will be whipped. We have stated so: “If he led it, if he made it draw, if he called it and it came, he is responsible to pay like a borrower.” But did not Samuel state: “If it was standing outside the Sabbath domain, he called it and it came after him, he is free.” There it comes of its own volition, here it is forced to walk But did we not state: “If he clapped before his [a slave’s] eye and blinded it, before his [a slave’s] ear and made it deaf, he [the slave] does not attain freedom.” Rebbi Eliezer ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yose, there is a difference because he [the slave] could have fled. Know that it is so because we have stated: “If he grabbed him he is guilty.”

Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: Practice follows the student. The words of the Sages are that all kinds of mules are the same.

“ ‘Field Stones’ is an animal.” Yassi from Arke: It is a mountain man and lives from its navel. If its umbilical cord is cut, it cannot live. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The reason of Rebbi Yose (Num. 19:16): “All that touches [a slain person] on the surface of the field”, when it grows on the field.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There are six unresolved doubts. The caper-bush among trees following the House of Shammai, clay vessels like potash vessels following the House of Shammai, the squirrel mole among the crawling things following the House of Shammai; the Egyptian bean among seed-vegetables, the hermaphrodite among humans, the koi among wild animals according to everybody. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba said, also the ṭrīqsīn cubit. What is the ṭrīqsīn cubit? Rebbi Jonah from Bostra said, confusion, “what is inside-outside?” Rebbi Yose said, since it is written (1K. 6:17) “forty cubits was the House, that is the inner Temple,” it means it is counted inside. Rebbi Mana said to him, but it is written (2Chr. 3:8) “He made the holiest of holies twenty cubits long and ten wide,” that means it is counted outside.

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Samuel: Goose and desert goose are kilaim one with the other. About goose and sea goose, Rebbi Judah ben Pazi stated in the name of Bar Dalaiah and we do not know what he stated. It is a conclusion a minori ad majus: If you say they are forbidden when both of them are on dry land, so much more if one is on dry land and one at sea.