bet

If one shook a bundle of vegetables and [water] dropped down from the upper [side] to the lower [side]: Bet Shammai say: this comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. But Bet Hillel say: this does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. Bet Hillel said to Bet Shammai: if one shakes a stalk, do we fear lest water drops from one leaf on the other leaf? Bet Shammai said to them: a stalk is only one, but a bundle has many stalks. Bet Hillel said to them: behold, if one lifted a sack full of produce and put it beside the river, do we fear lest water drops from the upper [side] to the lower [side]? But if he lifted two sacks and placed them one upon the other, the lower [sack] comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. Rabbi Yose says: the lower [sack] remains insusceptible to uncleanness.

If one shook a bundle of vegetables and [water] dropped down from the upper [side] to the lower [side]: Bet Shammai say: this comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. But Bet Hillel say: this does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. Bet Hillel said to Bet Shammai: if one shakes a stalk, do we fear lest water drops from one leaf on the other leaf? Bet Shammai said to them: a stalk is only one, but a bundle has many stalks. Bet Hillel said to them: behold, if one lifted a sack full of produce and put it beside the river, do we fear lest water drops from the upper [side] to the lower [side]? But if he lifted two sacks and placed them one upon the other, the lower [sack] comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. Rabbi Yose says: the lower [sack] remains insusceptible to uncleanness.

If one shook a bundle of vegetables and [water] dropped down from the upper [side] to the lower [side]: Bet Shammai say: this comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. But Bet Hillel say: this does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. Bet Hillel said to Bet Shammai: if one shakes a stalk, do we fear lest water drops from one leaf on the other leaf? Bet Shammai said to them: a stalk is only one, but a bundle has many stalks. Bet Hillel said to them: behold, if one lifted a sack full of produce and put it beside the river, do we fear lest water drops from the upper [side] to the lower [side]? But if he lifted two sacks and placed them one upon the other, the lower [sack] comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. Rabbi Yose says: the lower [sack] remains insusceptible to uncleanness.

A jar into which a leak [from a roof] fell: Bet Shammai say: it should be broken. But Bet Hillel say: it may be emptied out. But they agree that one may put out his hand and take produce from it and they are insusceptible to uncleanness.

A jar into which a leak [from a roof] fell: Bet Shammai say: it should be broken. But Bet Hillel say: it may be emptied out. But they agree that one may put out his hand and take produce from it and they are insusceptible to uncleanness.

A tub into which a leak [from a roof] fell, the water which splashed out or ran over does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. If one moved the tub in order to pour out the water: Bet Shammai say: it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. But Bet Hillel say: it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. If one placed the tub in order that the leak [from the roof] should fall into it: Bet Shammai say: the water that splashes out or runs over comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. But Bet Hillel say: it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. If one moved the tub in order to pour out the water, both agree that it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. If one immersed vessels or washed his garment in a cavern, the water that came up on his hands comes under the law of ‘if water be put’; but what came up on his feet does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. Rabbi Elazar says: if it was not possible for him to go down into the cavern without soiling his feet, what came up on his feet also comes under the law of ‘if water be put’.

A tub into which a leak [from a roof] fell, the water which splashed out or ran over does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. If one moved the tub in order to pour out the water: Bet Shammai say: it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. But Bet Hillel say: it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. If one placed the tub in order that the leak [from the roof] should fall into it: Bet Shammai say: the water that splashes out or runs over comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. But Bet Hillel say: it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. If one moved the tub in order to pour out the water, both agree that it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. If one immersed vessels or washed his garment in a cavern, the water that came up on his hands comes under the law of ‘if water be put’; but what came up on his feet does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. Rabbi Elazar says: if it was not possible for him to go down into the cavern without soiling his feet, what came up on his feet also comes under the law of ‘if water be put’.

A tub into which a leak [from a roof] fell, the water which splashed out or ran over does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. If one moved the tub in order to pour out the water: Bet Shammai say: it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. But Bet Hillel say: it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. If one placed the tub in order that the leak [from the roof] should fall into it: Bet Shammai say: the water that splashes out or runs over comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. But Bet Hillel say: it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. If one moved the tub in order to pour out the water, both agree that it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. If one immersed vessels or washed his garment in a cavern, the water that came up on his hands comes under the law of ‘if water be put’; but what came up on his feet does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. Rabbi Elazar says: if it was not possible for him to go down into the cavern without soiling his feet, what came up on his feet also comes under the law of ‘if water be put’.

A tub into which a leak [from a roof] fell, the water which splashed out or ran over does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. If one moved the tub in order to pour out the water: Bet Shammai say: it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. But Bet Hillel say: it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. If one placed the tub in order that the leak [from the roof] should fall into it: Bet Shammai say: the water that splashes out or runs over comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. But Bet Hillel say: it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. If one moved the tub in order to pour out the water, both agree that it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. If one immersed vessels or washed his garment in a cavern, the water that came up on his hands comes under the law of ‘if water be put’; but what came up on his feet does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. Rabbi Elazar says: if it was not possible for him to go down into the cavern without soiling his feet, what came up on his feet also comes under the law of ‘if water be put’.

A flow pouring [from one vessel to another] is clean, except [the flow] of honey of ziphim bees and honey batter. Bet Shammai say: also [the flow of] thick pottage of split beans, because it thickens up backwards.

If a man has seen one issue of zov: Bet Shammai says: he is to be compared to [a woman] who observes a day for each day. But Bet Hillel says: he is to be compared to one who has had a seminal emission. Should he see [one day] and on the second it stopped, and on the third day he saw two [issues], or one [issue] that was as copious as two: Bet Shammai says: he is a full zav. But Bet Hillel says: he defiles those objects on which he sits or lies, and must also go into running water, but he is exempt from the sacrifice. Rabbi Elazar ben Yehudah said: Bet Shammai agrees that in such a case he is not real zav. What do they disagree about? The case of one who saw two [issues], or one [issue] that was as copious as two [on one day], and stopped on the second day, and on the third day he saw another [issue]. Bet Shammai says: he is a real zav; But Bet Hillel say: he only defiles those objects on which he sits or lies, and must also go into running water, but he is exempt from the sacrifice.

If a man has seen one issue of zov: Bet Shammai says: he is to be compared to [a woman] who observes a day for each day. But Bet Hillel says: he is to be compared to one who has had a seminal emission. Should he see [one day] and on the second it stopped, and on the third day he saw two [issues], or one [issue] that was as copious as two: Bet Shammai says: he is a full zav. But Bet Hillel says: he defiles those objects on which he sits or lies, and must also go into running water, but he is exempt from the sacrifice. Rabbi Elazar ben Yehudah said: Bet Shammai agrees that in such a case he is not real zav. What do they disagree about? The case of one who saw two [issues], or one [issue] that was as copious as two [on one day], and stopped on the second day, and on the third day he saw another [issue]. Bet Shammai says: he is a real zav; But Bet Hillel say: he only defiles those objects on which he sits or lies, and must also go into running water, but he is exempt from the sacrifice.

If a man has seen one issue of zov: Bet Shammai says: he is to be compared to [a woman] who observes a day for each day. But Bet Hillel says: he is to be compared to one who has had a seminal emission. Should he see [one day] and on the second it stopped, and on the third day he saw two [issues], or one [issue] that was as copious as two: Bet Shammai says: he is a full zav. But Bet Hillel says: he defiles those objects on which he sits or lies, and must also go into running water, but he is exempt from the sacrifice. Rabbi Elazar ben Yehudah said: Bet Shammai agrees that in such a case he is not real zav. What do they disagree about? The case of one who saw two [issues], or one [issue] that was as copious as two [on one day], and stopped on the second day, and on the third day he saw another [issue]. Bet Shammai says: he is a real zav; But Bet Hillel say: he only defiles those objects on which he sits or lies, and must also go into running water, but he is exempt from the sacrifice.

If a man has seen one issue of zov: Bet Shammai says: he is to be compared to [a woman] who observes a day for each day. But Bet Hillel says: he is to be compared to one who has had a seminal emission. Should he see [one day] and on the second it stopped, and on the third day he saw two [issues], or one [issue] that was as copious as two: Bet Shammai says: he is a full zav. But Bet Hillel says: he defiles those objects on which he sits or lies, and must also go into running water, but he is exempt from the sacrifice. Rabbi Elazar ben Yehudah said: Bet Shammai agrees that in such a case he is not real zav. What do they disagree about? The case of one who saw two [issues], or one [issue] that was as copious as two [on one day], and stopped on the second day, and on the third day he saw another [issue]. Bet Shammai says: he is a real zav; But Bet Hillel say: he only defiles those objects on which he sits or lies, and must also go into running water, but he is exempt from the sacrifice.

If a man has seen one issue of zov: Bet Shammai says: he is to be compared to [a woman] who observes a day for each day. But Bet Hillel says: he is to be compared to one who has had a seminal emission. Should he see [one day] and on the second it stopped, and on the third day he saw two [issues], or one [issue] that was as copious as two: Bet Shammai says: he is a full zav. But Bet Hillel says: he defiles those objects on which he sits or lies, and must also go into running water, but he is exempt from the sacrifice. Rabbi Elazar ben Yehudah said: Bet Shammai agrees that in such a case he is not real zav. What do they disagree about? The case of one who saw two [issues], or one [issue] that was as copious as two [on one day], and stopped on the second day, and on the third day he saw another [issue]. Bet Shammai says: he is a real zav; But Bet Hillel say: he only defiles those objects on which he sits or lies, and must also go into running water, but he is exempt from the sacrifice.

If a man has seen one issue of zov: Bet Shammai says: he is to be compared to [a woman] who observes a day for each day. But Bet Hillel says: he is to be compared to one who has had a seminal emission. Should he see [one day] and on the second it stopped, and on the third day he saw two [issues], or one [issue] that was as copious as two: Bet Shammai says: he is a full zav. But Bet Hillel says: he defiles those objects on which he sits or lies, and must also go into running water, but he is exempt from the sacrifice. Rabbi Elazar ben Yehudah said: Bet Shammai agrees that in such a case he is not real zav. What do they disagree about? The case of one who saw two [issues], or one [issue] that was as copious as two [on one day], and stopped on the second day, and on the third day he saw another [issue]. Bet Shammai says: he is a real zav; But Bet Hillel say: he only defiles those objects on which he sits or lies, and must also go into running water, but he is exempt from the sacrifice.

If a man has seen one issue of zov: Bet Shammai says: he is to be compared to [a woman] who observes a day for each day. But Bet Hillel says: he is to be compared to one who has had a seminal emission. Should he see [one day] and on the second it stopped, and on the third day he saw two [issues], or one [issue] that was as copious as two: Bet Shammai says: he is a full zav. But Bet Hillel says: he defiles those objects on which he sits or lies, and must also go into running water, but he is exempt from the sacrifice. Rabbi Elazar ben Yehudah said: Bet Shammai agrees that in such a case he is not real zav. What do they disagree about? The case of one who saw two [issues], or one [issue] that was as copious as two [on one day], and stopped on the second day, and on the third day he saw another [issue]. Bet Shammai says: he is a real zav; But Bet Hillel say: he only defiles those objects on which he sits or lies, and must also go into running water, but he is exempt from the sacrifice.

If one sees an issue of semen on the third day of counting his zov: Bet Shammai says: it undoes the two preceding days; But Bet Hillel says: it undoes only that day. Rabbi Ishmael says: one who sees it on the second day, it undoes the preceding day. But Rabbi Akiva says: it matters not whether he saw it on the second day or on the third day: Bet Shammai says: it undoes the two preceding days; And Bet Hillel says: it undoes only that day. But they agree that if he saw it on the fourth day [of counting] it undoes only that day. This is if he saw semen; but he saw zov, then even if this had occurred on the seventh day, it undoes all the days that had preceded.

If one sees an issue of semen on the third day of counting his zov: Bet Shammai says: it undoes the two preceding days; But Bet Hillel says: it undoes only that day. Rabbi Ishmael says: one who sees it on the second day, it undoes the preceding day. But Rabbi Akiva says: it matters not whether he saw it on the second day or on the third day: Bet Shammai says: it undoes the two preceding days; And Bet Hillel says: it undoes only that day. But they agree that if he saw it on the fourth day [of counting] it undoes only that day. This is if he saw semen; but he saw zov, then even if this had occurred on the seventh day, it undoes all the days that had preceded.

If one sees an issue of semen on the third day of counting his zov: Bet Shammai says: it undoes the two preceding days; But Bet Hillel says: it undoes only that day. Rabbi Ishmael says: one who sees it on the second day, it undoes the preceding day. But Rabbi Akiva says: it matters not whether he saw it on the second day or on the third day: Bet Shammai says: it undoes the two preceding days; And Bet Hillel says: it undoes only that day. But they agree that if he saw it on the fourth day [of counting] it undoes only that day. This is if he saw semen; but he saw zov, then even if this had occurred on the seventh day, it undoes all the days that had preceded.

If one sees an issue of semen on the third day of counting his zov: Bet Shammai says: it undoes the two preceding days; But Bet Hillel says: it undoes only that day. Rabbi Ishmael says: one who sees it on the second day, it undoes the preceding day. But Rabbi Akiva says: it matters not whether he saw it on the second day or on the third day: Bet Shammai says: it undoes the two preceding days; And Bet Hillel says: it undoes only that day. But they agree that if he saw it on the fourth day [of counting] it undoes only that day. This is if he saw semen; but he saw zov, then even if this had occurred on the seventh day, it undoes all the days that had preceded.

If one had collected hallah [portions] with the intention of keeping them separate, but in the meantime they had become stuck together: Bet Shammai say: they are connected in the case of a tevul yom. But Bet Hillel say: they are not connected. Pieces of dough [of terumah] that had become stuck together, Or loaves that had become joined, or one who bakes a batter-cake on top of another batter-cake before it could form a crust in the oven, or the froth on the water that was bubbling, or the first scum that rises when boiling groats of beans, or the scum of new wine (r. Judah says: also that of rice): Bet Shammai say: they are connected in the case of a tevul yom. But Bet Hillel say: they are not connected. They agree [that they serve as connectives] if they come into contact with other kinds of uncleanness, whether they be of minor or major grades.

If one had collected hallah [portions] with the intention of keeping them separate, but in the meantime they had become stuck together: Bet Shammai say: they are connected in the case of a tevul yom. But Bet Hillel say: they are not connected. Pieces of dough [of terumah] that had become stuck together, Or loaves that had become joined, or one who bakes a batter-cake on top of another batter-cake before it could form a crust in the oven, or the froth on the water that was bubbling, or the first scum that rises when boiling groats of beans, or the scum of new wine (r. Judah says: also that of rice): Bet Shammai say: they are connected in the case of a tevul yom. But Bet Hillel say: they are not connected. They agree [that they serve as connectives] if they come into contact with other kinds of uncleanness, whether they be of minor or major grades.

If one had collected hallah [portions] with the intention of keeping them separate, but in the meantime they had become stuck together: Bet Shammai say: they are connected in the case of a tevul yom. But Bet Hillel say: they are not connected. Pieces of dough [of terumah] that had become stuck together, Or loaves that had become joined, or one who bakes a batter-cake on top of another batter-cake before it could form a crust in the oven, or the froth on the water that was bubbling, or the first scum that rises when boiling groats of beans, or the scum of new wine (r. Judah says: also that of rice): Bet Shammai say: they are connected in the case of a tevul yom. But Bet Hillel say: they are not connected. They agree [that they serve as connectives] if they come into contact with other kinds of uncleanness, whether they be of minor or major grades.

If one had collected hallah [portions] with the intention of keeping them separate, but in the meantime they had become stuck together: Bet Shammai say: they are connected in the case of a tevul yom. But Bet Hillel say: they are not connected. Pieces of dough [of terumah] that had become stuck together, Or loaves that had become joined, or one who bakes a batter-cake on top of another batter-cake before it could form a crust in the oven, or the froth on the water that was bubbling, or the first scum that rises when boiling groats of beans, or the scum of new wine (r. Judah says: also that of rice): Bet Shammai say: they are connected in the case of a tevul yom. But Bet Hillel say: they are not connected. They agree [that they serve as connectives] if they come into contact with other kinds of uncleanness, whether they be of minor or major grades.

A scroll on which the writing has become erased and eighty-five letters remain, as many as are in the section beginning, "And it came to pass when the ark set forward" (Numbers 10:35-36) defiles the hands. A single sheet on which there are written eighty-five letters, as many as are in the section beginning, "And it came to pass when the ark set forward", defiles the hands. All the Holy Scriptures defile the hands. The Song of Songs and Kohelet (Ecclesiastes) defile the hands. Rabbi Judah says: the Song of Songs defiles the hands, but there is a dispute about Kohelet. Rabbi Yose says: Kohelet does not defile the hands, but there is a dispute about the Song of Songs. Rabbi Shimon says: [the ruling about] Kohelet is one of the leniencies of Bet Shammai and one of the stringencies of Bet Hillel. Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai said: I have received a tradition from the seventy-two elders on the day when they appointed Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah head of the academy that the Song of Songs and Kohelet defile the hands. Rabbi Akiba said: Far be it! No man in Israel disputed that the Song of Songs [saying] that it does not defile the hands. For the whole world is not as worthy as the day on which the Song of Songs was given to Israel; for all the writings are holy but the Song of Songs is the holy of holies. If they had a dispute, they had a dispute only about Kohelet. Rabbi Yohanan ben Joshua the son of the father-in-law of Rabbi Akiva said in accordance with the words of Ben Azzai: so they disputed and so they reached a decision.

A scroll on which the writing has become erased and eighty-five letters remain, as many as are in the section beginning, "And it came to pass when the ark set forward" (Numbers 10:35-36) defiles the hands. A single sheet on which there are written eighty-five letters, as many as are in the section beginning, "And it came to pass when the ark set forward", defiles the hands. All the Holy Scriptures defile the hands. The Song of Songs and Kohelet (Ecclesiastes) defile the hands. Rabbi Judah says: the Song of Songs defiles the hands, but there is a dispute about Kohelet. Rabbi Yose says: Kohelet does not defile the hands, but there is a dispute about the Song of Songs. Rabbi Shimon says: [the ruling about] Kohelet is one of the leniencies of Bet Shammai and one of the stringencies of Bet Hillel. Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai said: I have received a tradition from the seventy-two elders on the day when they appointed Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah head of the academy that the Song of Songs and Kohelet defile the hands. Rabbi Akiba said: Far be it! No man in Israel disputed that the Song of Songs [saying] that it does not defile the hands. For the whole world is not as worthy as the day on which the Song of Songs was given to Israel; for all the writings are holy but the Song of Songs is the holy of holies. If they had a dispute, they had a dispute only about Kohelet. Rabbi Yohanan ben Joshua the son of the father-in-law of Rabbi Akiva said in accordance with the words of Ben Azzai: so they disputed and so they reached a decision.

Unripe figs or grapes: Rabbi Akiva says: they convey food uncleanness; Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: [this is only] when they have reached the season when they are liable to tithes. Olives and grapes that have hardened: Bet Shammai says: they are susceptible to uncleanness, Bet Hillel says: they are insusceptible. Black cumin: Bet Shammai says: is not susceptible, Bet Hillel says: it is susceptible. Similarly [they dispute with regard to their liability to] tithes.

Unripe figs or grapes: Rabbi Akiva says: they convey food uncleanness; Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: [this is only] when they have reached the season when they are liable to tithes. Olives and grapes that have hardened: Bet Shammai says: they are susceptible to uncleanness, Bet Hillel says: they are insusceptible. Black cumin: Bet Shammai says: is not susceptible, Bet Hillel says: it is susceptible. Similarly [they dispute with regard to their liability to] tithes.

Unripe figs or grapes: Rabbi Akiva says: they convey food uncleanness; Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: [this is only] when they have reached the season when they are liable to tithes. Olives and grapes that have hardened: Bet Shammai says: they are susceptible to uncleanness, Bet Hillel says: they are insusceptible. Black cumin: Bet Shammai says: is not susceptible, Bet Hillel says: it is susceptible. Similarly [they dispute with regard to their liability to] tithes.

Unripe figs or grapes: Rabbi Akiva says: they convey food uncleanness; Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: [this is only] when they have reached the season when they are liable to tithes. Olives and grapes that have hardened: Bet Shammai says: they are susceptible to uncleanness, Bet Hillel says: they are insusceptible. Black cumin: Bet Shammai says: is not susceptible, Bet Hillel says: it is susceptible. Similarly [they dispute with regard to their liability to] tithes.

When do fish become susceptible to uncleanness? Bet Shammai say: after they have been caught. Bet Hillel say: only after they are dead. Rabbi Akiva says: if they can still live. If a branch of a fig tree was broken off, but it was still attached by its bark: Rabbi Judah says: [the fruit] is still not susceptible to uncleanness. But the sages say: [it all depends] whether they could still live. Grain that had been uprooted, but is still attached to the soil even by the smallest of roots, is not susceptible to uncleanness.

When do fish become susceptible to uncleanness? Bet Shammai say: after they have been caught. Bet Hillel say: only after they are dead. Rabbi Akiva says: if they can still live. If a branch of a fig tree was broken off, but it was still attached by its bark: Rabbi Judah says: [the fruit] is still not susceptible to uncleanness. But the sages say: [it all depends] whether they could still live. Grain that had been uprooted, but is still attached to the soil even by the smallest of roots, is not susceptible to uncleanness.

When do honeycombs become susceptible to uncleanness on account of their being regarded as liquids? Bet Shammai says: from the moment he begins to smoke the bees out. But Bet Hillel says: once he breaks up the honeycomb.

When do honeycombs become susceptible to uncleanness on account of their being regarded as liquids? Bet Shammai says: from the moment he begins to smoke the bees out. But Bet Hillel says: once he breaks up the honeycomb.

Rebbi Yoḥanan was leaning on Rebbi Jacob bar Idi when Rebbi Eleazar saw him and hid himself before him. He said, these two things the Babylonian does to me: First, that he does not greet me, and second, that he does not teach the traditions in my name. He said to him, thus they behave among themselves; Zeïra did not greet Rabba since they observe (Job 29:8) “Boys see me and hide themselves.” As they were walking, he saw a Bet Midrash. He said to him: Here Rebbi Meïr sat and reported traditions in the name of Rebbi Ismaël but he never reported traditions in the name of Rebbi Aqiba. He answered: Everybody knows that Rebbi Meïr was the student of Rebbi Aqiba. He retorted, everybody knows that Rebbi Eleazar is the student of Rebbi Yoḥanan. May one pass by a cursed statue? He said to him, do you want to honor it? Pass it by and blind its eyes! He said to him, Rebbi Eleazar did well that he did not pass before you. He said: Rebbi Jacob bar Idi, you know how to pacify.

Rav said: Fallow land and ploughed land of a bet rova‘, other produce even the tiniest amount. Rebbi Joḥanan said: Fallow land, ploughed land, and other produce at three preliminary furrows. Do they disagree? What Rav said refers to produce subject to peah, what Rebbi Joḥanan said refers to produce not subject to peah. But did we not state that fallow or ploughed land is subject to peah? What Rav said refers to an average field, what Rebbi Joḥanan said refers to a plot 50 by 2.

Rebbi Mana said: Sometimes they need to be inside four cubits and sometimes they need to be inside ten handbreadths if they are planted ten to a bet se‘ah. How do you understand this? They need to be within four cubits of the fence; the crowns have to be within ten handbreadths of one another if they are planted ten to a bet se‘ah.

Rebbi Mana said: Sometimes they need to be inside four cubits and sometimes they need to be inside ten handbreadths if they are planted ten to a bet se‘ah. How do you understand this? They need to be within four cubits of the fence; the crowns have to be within ten handbreadths of one another if they are planted ten to a bet se‘ah.

What are we dealing with? If they are widely spaced, even the House of Shammai will agree that he gives one peah for all of them. If they are densely planted, the House of Hillel will agree that he gives peah from each single one. But we deal with the case of 10 plants on a bet se’ah. The House of Shammai compare it to widely spaced, the House of Hillel compare it to densely planted ones.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Eliezer says, a plot of a bet rova‘ is obligated for peah. Rebbi Joshua says, if its yield is two seah. Rebbi Ṭarphon says, six by six hand-breadths. Rebbi Joshua ben Bathyra said, if it is enough to cut and cut a second time; practice follows his words.

HALAKHAH: What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? It says here “your field” and it says about kilaim “your field”. Just as “your field” mentioned there means a bet rova‘, so here it means bet rova‘. What is the reason of Rebbi Joshua? It says here “your field” and it says further on (Deut. 24:19): “You might forget a sheaf on the field.” Just as the field mentioned there means two, so here also two. What is the reason of Rebbi Ṭarphon? Six by six from a vegetable patch. “Rebbi Joshua ben Bathyra says, if it is enough to cut and cut a second time, and practice follows his words.” Does “harvesting” mean following the technique of harvesters, or is it any amount? Since it is written (Ps. 129:7): “The harvester did not fill his palm with it, nor the binder of sheaves his bosom,” that means that one follows the technique of harvesters.

HALAKHAH: What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? It says here “your field” and it says about kilaim “your field”. Just as “your field” mentioned there means a bet rova‘, so here it means bet rova‘. What is the reason of Rebbi Joshua? It says here “your field” and it says further on (Deut. 24:19): “You might forget a sheaf on the field.” Just as the field mentioned there means two, so here also two. What is the reason of Rebbi Ṭarphon? Six by six from a vegetable patch. “Rebbi Joshua ben Bathyra says, if it is enough to cut and cut a second time, and practice follows his words.” Does “harvesting” mean following the technique of harvesters, or is it any amount? Since it is written (Ps. 129:7): “The harvester did not fill his palm with it, nor the binder of sheaves his bosom,” that means that one follows the technique of harvesters.

MISHNAH: One does not harvest peah with sickles and one does not uproot it with axes so that they should not injure one another. Three investigation periods are there during the day, in the morning, at noontime, and in the evening. Rabban Gamliel says, they decreed this only to say that one may not do less. Rebbi Aqiba says, they decreed this only to say that one may not do more. In Bet Namer they insisted on collecting along a rope and were giving peah from every strip.

“Those of Bet Namer insisted on collecting along a rope and were giving peah from every strip.” It was stated: Abba Shaul says, one mentions them disapprovingly and one mentions them approvingly. One mentions them disapprovingly because they only gave peah of one percent. And one mentions them approvingly because they insisted on collecting along a rope and were giving peah from every strip.

Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Four kab per kor. Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Abbahu: Four qab per kor or per bet kor? He said to him, per bet kor. There, we have stated: “What is the definition of a heap? Rather, if it is enough to let it fall. Rebbi Abbahu said, enough to let it fall as seed.” And here, he says so!

Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Four kab per kor. Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Abbahu: Four qab per kor or per bet kor? He said to him, per bet kor. There, we have stated: “What is the definition of a heap? Rather, if it is enough to let it fall. Rebbi Abbahu said, enough to let it fall as seed.” And here, he says so!

Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi permitted Beth Shean on the testimony of Joshua ben Zeruz, the son of Rebbi Meïr’s father-in-law, who said, I saw Rebbi Meïr buy vegetables from a garden in the Sabbatical year. He permitted all of it! Rebbi Zeïra said, this implies that nobody should act in public; I say that this garden was a particular case for him; should he have permitted it completely? Rebbi permitted Beth Shean, permitted Caesarea, permitted Bet Guvrin, permitted Kefar Ẓemaḥ. Rebbi permitted to buy vegetables after the end of the Sabbatical year and all were saying bad things about him. He said to them, come and let us discuss the matter. It is written (2Kings 18:4): “He smashed the brass snake.” Was there no just person between Moses and Hezekiah to remove it? But the Holy One, praise to Him, reserved that crown to him so he could crown himself with it. We also had this crown reserved by the Holy One, praise to Him, to crown ourselves with it.

“The following are the forbidden towns in the district of Tyre: ṡẓt, Al-Baṣa, the source at Ma‘aṣuba, upper and lower Ḥanuta, Bet Badia, the water spring, Hamun, and Mazy.”

Does Rebbi Judah say that in this case it is not kilaim? Rebbi Zeïra said, Rebbi Jehudah follows his own opinion, since Rebbi Jehudah said, in the case of a vegetable field one hand-breadth. Rebbi Yose said, he who wants to question this statement of Rebbi Zeïra might deduce the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah from that of the rabbis. Just as the rabbis say, in the case of the prohibition of bet rova‘ one needs six-by-six to whip, so Rebbi Judah said in the case of the prohibition of six-by-six that one needs a hand-breadth to whip. But did we not state, Rebbi Judah permits it? Then it is difficult: what is the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Since he threw it out from his hand as seed, he is guilty. But did we not state that “Rebbi Jehudah says, it is not kilaim?” Explain it, until the moment that it comes to rest. But was it not stated that Rebbi Judah permits it? Even if it came to rest, Rebbi Jehudah permits it. Rebbi Illaï said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion, since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Ḥizqiah: A vertex from a dry spot is permitted. Then it also should be thus in the case of two wheat grains and one of barley? That is correct. But did we not state, “unless there are two wheat kernels and one barley kernel, or one wheat kernel and two barley kernels, or one each of wheat, barley, and spelt?” Explain it if there is a grain of wheat on each side, a fence on each side, and the grain of barley caught in the middle. Rebbi Mattaniah said, that is only if there is no dry spot, but if there is a dry spot there, it is permitted.

MISHNAH: Every seah that contains a quarter of seeds from another kind should be diminished; Rebbi Yose says, he must pick it out, whether it be from one kind or from two kinds. Rebbi Simeon said, they said it only for one kind, but the Sages say, everything that is kilaim with the seah counts together for a quarter. When is this said? Grain with grain, legumes with legumes, grain with legumes, legumes with grain. In truth, they said that garden seeds which are not eaten add up together for one in 24 when they fall on a bet seah. Rebbi Simeon said, that which they said to restrict, they also said for leniency. Flax seeds in grain add up together for one in 24 when they fall on a bet seah.

MISHNAH: Every seah that contains a quarter of seeds from another kind should be diminished; Rebbi Yose says, he must pick it out, whether it be from one kind or from two kinds. Rebbi Simeon said, they said it only for one kind, but the Sages say, everything that is kilaim with the seah counts together for a quarter. When is this said? Grain with grain, legumes with legumes, grain with legumes, legumes with grain. In truth, they said that garden seeds which are not eaten add up together for one in 24 when they fall on a bet seah. Rebbi Simeon said, that which they said to restrict, they also said for leniency. Flax seeds in grain add up together for one in 24 when they fall on a bet seah.

But when they were mixed up during transport. But did we not state: “In truth, they said that garden seeds which are not eaten add up together for one in 24 when they fall on a bet seah.” And we stated on that, this is a qab or half a qab. What could one do with the twenty-fourth part of half a qab? For that, they are worried because of the bad impression. They were not worried because of the bad impression from a lesser amount.

MISHNAH: If his field was sown with wheat and he changes his mind to sow it with barley, he should wait until it gets wormy, then he turns it over and after that he may sow. If it is sprouting, he should not say, I am going to sow and then turn it over, but he turns it over and then he sows. How deep does he have to plough? Like furrows for the rainy season. Abba Shaul says, so that there should not remain a quarter for a bet seah.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Eleazar, in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder: He makes it two by two cubits, but decreases continuously to an arbitrarily small distance. Rebbi Jonah said, that is, if it is subdivided into garden beds, but if all is one bed, it does not apply. This parallels what Rebbi Yannai said: I may sow my field with fifty kinds, twenty-five here and twenty-five there; this is in two rows. If that is so, would it be permitted even between himself and his neighbor? Or in a dry spot? Then it parallels what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Ḥizqiah: A vertex from a dry spot is permitted! Rebbi said, he starts with an area of bet rova‘ and narrows it down to three furrows of the ploughshare. Does Rebbi not accept that between grains one needs a bet rova‘? That is for a square field, here for a garden bed. Do the rabbis not recognize garden beds? Rebbi Yudan said, the minimal distance for Rebbi is the maximal distance for the rabbis.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Eleazar, in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder: He makes it two by two cubits, but decreases continuously to an arbitrarily small distance. Rebbi Jonah said, that is, if it is subdivided into garden beds, but if all is one bed, it does not apply. This parallels what Rebbi Yannai said: I may sow my field with fifty kinds, twenty-five here and twenty-five there; this is in two rows. If that is so, would it be permitted even between himself and his neighbor? Or in a dry spot? Then it parallels what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Ḥizqiah: A vertex from a dry spot is permitted! Rebbi said, he starts with an area of bet rova‘ and narrows it down to three furrows of the ploughshare. Does Rebbi not accept that between grains one needs a bet rova‘? That is for a square field, here for a garden bed. Do the rabbis not recognize garden beds? Rebbi Yudan said, the minimal distance for Rebbi is the maximal distance for the rabbis.

Ḥizqiah said, if somebody has slightly more than a bet rova‘, then in that excess he may sow anything he likes. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he may sow in it only one kind. Rebbi Zeïra said, Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that if he had a bet rova‘ and a half, he may sow half a bet rova‘ from either side and the last half bet rova‘ is valid for both sides. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “ If he had fields, one sown with wheat and the other sown with barley, he may bring straw in between and sow one side with wheat and the other with barley because the wheat looks like the end of the wheat field, and the barley like the end of the barley field.” What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with that? He explains it following Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob, for Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob said: “Even if wheat after wheat comes close to barley, barley after barley comes close to wheat, it is permitted.” For wheat after wheat only comes close to barley (wheat), barley after barley comes close to (barley) [wheat], but if only one wheat stalk is absorbed into the barley, or one stalk of barley is absorbed into the wheat, then that is forbidden.

Ḥizqiah said, if somebody has slightly more than a bet rova‘, then in that excess he may sow anything he likes. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he may sow in it only one kind. Rebbi Zeïra said, Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that if he had a bet rova‘ and a half, he may sow half a bet rova‘ from either side and the last half bet rova‘ is valid for both sides. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “ If he had fields, one sown with wheat and the other sown with barley, he may bring straw in between and sow one side with wheat and the other with barley because the wheat looks like the end of the wheat field, and the barley like the end of the barley field.” What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with that? He explains it following Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob, for Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob said: “Even if wheat after wheat comes close to barley, barley after barley comes close to wheat, it is permitted.” For wheat after wheat only comes close to barley (wheat), barley after barley comes close to (barley) [wheat], but if only one wheat stalk is absorbed into the barley, or one stalk of barley is absorbed into the wheat, then that is forbidden.

Ḥizqiah said, if somebody has slightly more than a bet rova‘, then in that excess he may sow anything he likes. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he may sow in it only one kind. Rebbi Zeïra said, Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that if he had a bet rova‘ and a half, he may sow half a bet rova‘ from either side and the last half bet rova‘ is valid for both sides. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “ If he had fields, one sown with wheat and the other sown with barley, he may bring straw in between and sow one side with wheat and the other with barley because the wheat looks like the end of the wheat field, and the barley like the end of the barley field.” What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with that? He explains it following Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob, for Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob said: “Even if wheat after wheat comes close to barley, barley after barley comes close to wheat, it is permitted.” For wheat after wheat only comes close to barley (wheat), barley after barley comes close to (barley) [wheat], but if only one wheat stalk is absorbed into the barley, or one stalk of barley is absorbed into the wheat, then that is forbidden.

Ḥizqiah said, if somebody has slightly more than a bet rova‘, then in that excess he may sow anything he likes. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he may sow in it only one kind. Rebbi Zeïra said, Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that if he had a bet rova‘ and a half, he may sow half a bet rova‘ from either side and the last half bet rova‘ is valid for both sides. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “ If he had fields, one sown with wheat and the other sown with barley, he may bring straw in between and sow one side with wheat and the other with barley because the wheat looks like the end of the wheat field, and the barley like the end of the barley field.” What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with that? He explains it following Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob, for Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob said: “Even if wheat after wheat comes close to barley, barley after barley comes close to wheat, it is permitted.” For wheat after wheat only comes close to barley (wheat), barley after barley comes close to (barley) [wheat], but if only one wheat stalk is absorbed into the barley, or one stalk of barley is absorbed into the wheat, then that is forbidden.

It was stated: “One may sow a row of mustard or saffron in the middle of one’s field on condition to make the row long, a length of 10.5 cubits the entire width.” Rebbi Eleazar said, that applies only to a small field, not to a large one. What is large and what is small? If there is between the two ends a bet rova‘, that is large, otherwise it is small. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, for Rebbi Joḥanan said that a vertex that comes from a dry spot is forbidden? There it is for grain, here for vegetables. Even though Rebbi Joḥanan disagrees for grain, he will agree here with respect to vegetables.

The House of Yannai said, on the fence one may sow all kinds of mixtures. A fence implies leniencies and stringencies. How is this? Less than a bet rova‘ shaven in a grain field may not be sown; if surrounded with a fence it may be sown. A bet rova‘ in open country may be sown with two kinds; if surrounded with a fence this is forbidden.

The House of Yannai said, on the fence one may sow all kinds of mixtures. A fence implies leniencies and stringencies. How is this? Less than a bet rova‘ shaven in a grain field may not be sown; if surrounded with a fence it may be sown. A bet rova‘ in open country may be sown with two kinds; if surrounded with a fence this is forbidden.

MISHNAH: He who wants to turn his field into patches for all different kinds makes 24 patches per bet seah, each patch one bet rova‘, and sows in each one any kind that he desires. If there were one or two patches, he may sow them with mustard; three he should not sow because that would look like a mustard field, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, nine patches are permitted, ten are forbidden. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, even if its field is a bet kor, he should not make in it more than one patch.

MISHNAH: He who wants to turn his field into patches for all different kinds makes 24 patches per bet seah, each patch one bet rova‘, and sows in each one any kind that he desires. If there were one or two patches, he may sow them with mustard; three he should not sow because that would look like a mustard field, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, nine patches are permitted, ten are forbidden. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, even if its field is a bet kor, he should not make in it more than one patch.

MISHNAH: He who wants to turn his field into patches for all different kinds makes 24 patches per bet seah, each patch one bet rova‘, and sows in each one any kind that he desires. If there were one or two patches, he may sow them with mustard; three he should not sow because that would look like a mustard field, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, nine patches are permitted, ten are forbidden. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, even if its field is a bet kor, he should not make in it more than one patch.

MISHNAH: Anything that is inside the bet rova‘ counts for the measurement of bet rova‘. The surroundings of a vine, a grave, or a rock count for the measurement of bet rova‘. Grain and grain need a bet rova‘, vegetable and vegetable six hand-breadths. Grain and vegetables, vegetables and grain need a bet rova‘. Rebbi Eliezer says, vegetable and grain six hand-breadths. Grain leaning over grain, vegetable over vegetable, grain over vegetable, vegetable over grain, all is permitted except Greek gourd. Rebbi says, also green melon and Egyptian beans, but I prefer their words over my words.

MISHNAH: Anything that is inside the bet rova‘ counts for the measurement of bet rova‘. The surroundings of a vine, a grave, or a rock count for the measurement of bet rova‘. Grain and grain need a bet rova‘, vegetable and vegetable six hand-breadths. Grain and vegetables, vegetables and grain need a bet rova‘. Rebbi Eliezer says, vegetable and grain six hand-breadths. Grain leaning over grain, vegetable over vegetable, grain over vegetable, vegetable over grain, all is permitted except Greek gourd. Rebbi says, also green melon and Egyptian beans, but I prefer their words over my words.

MISHNAH: Anything that is inside the bet rova‘ counts for the measurement of bet rova‘. The surroundings of a vine, a grave, or a rock count for the measurement of bet rova‘. Grain and grain need a bet rova‘, vegetable and vegetable six hand-breadths. Grain and vegetables, vegetables and grain need a bet rova‘. Rebbi Eliezer says, vegetable and grain six hand-breadths. Grain leaning over grain, vegetable over vegetable, grain over vegetable, vegetable over grain, all is permitted except Greek gourd. Rebbi says, also green melon and Egyptian beans, but I prefer their words over my words.

MISHNAH: Anything that is inside the bet rova‘ counts for the measurement of bet rova‘. The surroundings of a vine, a grave, or a rock count for the measurement of bet rova‘. Grain and grain need a bet rova‘, vegetable and vegetable six hand-breadths. Grain and vegetables, vegetables and grain need a bet rova‘. Rebbi Eliezer says, vegetable and grain six hand-breadths. Grain leaning over grain, vegetable over vegetable, grain over vegetable, vegetable over grain, all is permitted except Greek gourd. Rebbi says, also green melon and Egyptian beans, but I prefer their words over my words.

MISHNAH: Anything that is inside the bet rova‘ counts for the measurement of bet rova‘. The surroundings of a vine, a grave, or a rock count for the measurement of bet rova‘. Grain and grain need a bet rova‘, vegetable and vegetable six hand-breadths. Grain and vegetables, vegetables and grain need a bet rova‘. Rebbi Eliezer says, vegetable and grain six hand-breadths. Grain leaning over grain, vegetable over vegetable, grain over vegetable, vegetable over grain, all is permitted except Greek gourd. Rebbi says, also green melon and Egyptian beans, but I prefer their words over my words.

“Grain and grain need a bet rova‘.” But only if it is not jailed on all four sides. Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Yasa: Does this mean that we say that in the ravine of Simonia one may sow only one kind?

May one raze a bet rova‘ and sow in it five different kinds of grain? If about a six-by-six, for whose infringement one is whipped by Biblical decree, you say it is permitted, then so much more here where you are not whipped by Biblical decree. May one raze at the corners of a six-by-six to make a continously narrowing patch? If in a case where working space does meet working space, you say that it is permitted, then so much more in this case where working space does not meet working space. That was unnecessary. May one raze at the corners of a bet rova‘ to make a continously narrowing patch? If about a six-by-six, for whose infringement one is whipped by Biblical decree, you say it is permitted, then so much more here where you are not whipped by Biblical decree.

May one raze a bet rova‘ and sow in it five different kinds of grain? If about a six-by-six, for whose infringement one is whipped by Biblical decree, you say it is permitted, then so much more here where you are not whipped by Biblical decree. May one raze at the corners of a six-by-six to make a continously narrowing patch? If in a case where working space does meet working space, you say that it is permitted, then so much more in this case where working space does not meet working space. That was unnecessary. May one raze at the corners of a bet rova‘ to make a continously narrowing patch? If about a six-by-six, for whose infringement one is whipped by Biblical decree, you say it is permitted, then so much more here where you are not whipped by Biblical decree.

MISHNAH: Pumpkin in the middle of vegetables goes by the rules of vegetables, in the middle of grain it needs a bet rova‘. If one’s field was sown with grain and he desired to plant there one row of pumpkin, he must allow six hand-breadths to tend it. If it grows, he has to uproot before it. Rebbi Yose said, he allows four cubits to tend it. They said to him, are you making this more restrictive than for a vine? He said to them, we find that this case is more restrictive than that of a vine. For a single vine one allows six hand-breadths to tend it, but for a single pumpkin a bet rova‘. Rebbi Meir says in the name of Rebbi Ismael, if there are three pumpkin plants in a bet seah one should not sow in that bet seah. Rebbi Yose, the son of the Snatcher from Efrat, says in the name of Rebbi Ismael, if there are three pumpkin plants in a bet kor one should not sow in that bet kor.

MISHNAH: Pumpkin in the middle of vegetables goes by the rules of vegetables, in the middle of grain it needs a bet rova‘. If one’s field was sown with grain and he desired to plant there one row of pumpkin, he must allow six hand-breadths to tend it. If it grows, he has to uproot before it. Rebbi Yose said, he allows four cubits to tend it. They said to him, are you making this more restrictive than for a vine? He said to them, we find that this case is more restrictive than that of a vine. For a single vine one allows six hand-breadths to tend it, but for a single pumpkin a bet rova‘. Rebbi Meir says in the name of Rebbi Ismael, if there are three pumpkin plants in a bet seah one should not sow in that bet seah. Rebbi Yose, the son of the Snatcher from Efrat, says in the name of Rebbi Ismael, if there are three pumpkin plants in a bet kor one should not sow in that bet kor.

MISHNAH: Pumpkin in the middle of vegetables goes by the rules of vegetables, in the middle of grain it needs a bet rova‘. If one’s field was sown with grain and he desired to plant there one row of pumpkin, he must allow six hand-breadths to tend it. If it grows, he has to uproot before it. Rebbi Yose said, he allows four cubits to tend it. They said to him, are you making this more restrictive than for a vine? He said to them, we find that this case is more restrictive than that of a vine. For a single vine one allows six hand-breadths to tend it, but for a single pumpkin a bet rova‘. Rebbi Meir says in the name of Rebbi Ismael, if there are three pumpkin plants in a bet seah one should not sow in that bet seah. Rebbi Yose, the son of the Snatcher from Efrat, says in the name of Rebbi Ismael, if there are three pumpkin plants in a bet kor one should not sow in that bet kor.

MISHNAH: Pumpkin in the middle of vegetables goes by the rules of vegetables, in the middle of grain it needs a bet rova‘. If one’s field was sown with grain and he desired to plant there one row of pumpkin, he must allow six hand-breadths to tend it. If it grows, he has to uproot before it. Rebbi Yose said, he allows four cubits to tend it. They said to him, are you making this more restrictive than for a vine? He said to them, we find that this case is more restrictive than that of a vine. For a single vine one allows six hand-breadths to tend it, but for a single pumpkin a bet rova‘. Rebbi Meir says in the name of Rebbi Ismael, if there are three pumpkin plants in a bet seah one should not sow in that bet seah. Rebbi Yose, the son of the Snatcher from Efrat, says in the name of Rebbi Ismael, if there are three pumpkin plants in a bet kor one should not sow in that bet kor.

MISHNAH: Pumpkin in the middle of vegetables goes by the rules of vegetables, in the middle of grain it needs a bet rova‘. If one’s field was sown with grain and he desired to plant there one row of pumpkin, he must allow six hand-breadths to tend it. If it grows, he has to uproot before it. Rebbi Yose said, he allows four cubits to tend it. They said to him, are you making this more restrictive than for a vine? He said to them, we find that this case is more restrictive than that of a vine. For a single vine one allows six hand-breadths to tend it, but for a single pumpkin a bet rova‘. Rebbi Meir says in the name of Rebbi Ismael, if there are three pumpkin plants in a bet seah one should not sow in that bet seah. Rebbi Yose, the son of the Snatcher from Efrat, says in the name of Rebbi Ismael, if there are three pumpkin plants in a bet kor one should not sow in that bet kor.

MISHNAH: Pumpkin in the middle of vegetables goes by the rules of vegetables, in the middle of grain it needs a bet rova‘. If one’s field was sown with grain and he desired to plant there one row of pumpkin, he must allow six hand-breadths to tend it. If it grows, he has to uproot before it. Rebbi Yose said, he allows four cubits to tend it. They said to him, are you making this more restrictive than for a vine? He said to them, we find that this case is more restrictive than that of a vine. For a single vine one allows six hand-breadths to tend it, but for a single pumpkin a bet rova‘. Rebbi Meir says in the name of Rebbi Ismael, if there are three pumpkin plants in a bet seah one should not sow in that bet seah. Rebbi Yose, the son of the Snatcher from Efrat, says in the name of Rebbi Ismael, if there are three pumpkin plants in a bet kor one should not sow in that bet kor.

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.

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 Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, come and see the difference between the early and the late statements of Rebbi Ismael! He started out with a bet kor and ended up with a bet seah́!

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, come and see the difference between the early and the late statements of Rebbi Ismael! He started out with a bet kor and ended up with a bet seah́!

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Judah ben Ḥaninah: If one put in four poles at the four corners of a vineyard and connected them with a bast string on top, this saves as a symbolic fence. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the rules of separation walls for the Sabbath are the rules for kilaim. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it happened that Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥah went to Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri at Nagnigar; he showed him a field called bet ḥaverata whose wall had parts torn down more than ten wide. He took wood to insert, forked poles to insert, until he reduced to less than ten. He said, just like that is a dividing wall for the Sabbath. Rebbi Zeïra said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that on the Sabbath, a symbolic fence does not save more than ten. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, the Mishnah says so: “One surrounds it with three ropes, one above the other.” If you say that the string saves, one rope would be sufficient.

MISHNAH: A dried-up vineyard, if it contains ten producing vines per bet seah and they are planted regularly, is called vineyard. A poor vineyard, one that is planted irregularly, if in it one can ascertain three parallel to two is a vineyard, otherwise it is not a vineyard. Rebbi Meïr said, since it has the appearance of vineyards, it is a vineyard.

Rebbi Zeïra showed to the colleagues: Nine rows of seven each. Take away one next to another for the warp and one next to another for the woof. There remain 20 vines. Take away two from each side in one direction, one from each side in the other direction. There remain 10 vines. That is what we have stated: “Ten vines per bet seah”. It turns out that there are four times two parallel two and one protrudes as tail.

It turns out to be 64 by 48. Take two from here and put them there, that turns out to be 48 by 48. Take out one in between, one in between, and make a bald spot 16 by 16 that can be tended by eight cubits. How do you treat it? Itself and the area to tend it within a bet seah, or without the area to tend it? If you take it with the area to tend it within the bet seah, then 348 are missing. If you take it without the area to tend it, there is an excess of 45218. You might say, they are separated as single ones. You might say, they are closer together: we have stated only “10 per bet seah;” you could not state that.

It turns out to be 64 by 48. Take two from here and put them there, that turns out to be 48 by 48. Take out one in between, one in between, and make a bald spot 16 by 16 that can be tended by eight cubits. How do you treat it? Itself and the area to tend it within a bet seah, or without the area to tend it? If you take it with the area to tend it within the bet seah, then 348 are missing. If you take it without the area to tend it, there is an excess of 45218. You might say, they are separated as single ones. You might say, they are closer together: we have stated only “10 per bet seah;” you could not state that.

It turns out to be 64 by 48. Take two from here and put them there, that turns out to be 48 by 48. Take out one in between, one in between, and make a bald spot 16 by 16 that can be tended by eight cubits. How do you treat it? Itself and the area to tend it within a bet seah, or without the area to tend it? If you take it with the area to tend it within the bet seah, then 348 are missing. If you take it without the area to tend it, there is an excess of 45218. You might say, they are separated as single ones. You might say, they are closer together: we have stated only “10 per bet seah;” you could not state that.

MISHNAH: What is an orchard? Any three trees on a bet seah; if they may produce a fig cake in the weight of a talent of 60 Italic minas one ploughs the entire bet seah because of them. If it is less, one ploughs for them only to accomodate the harvester and his basket beside him.

MISHNAH: What is an orchard? Any three trees on a bet seah; if they may produce a fig cake in the weight of a talent of 60 Italic minas one ploughs the entire bet seah because of them. If it is less, one ploughs for them only to accomodate the harvester and his basket beside him.

HALAKHAH: Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody buys three trees on another person’s property, spaced so that ten trees could be planted in a bet seah and that the ox and its harness could pass between them, then he acquired the ground under them, the ground between them, and outside the space for the harvester and his basket. Rav said, if they form a group. Samuel says, also if they are in a straight line. Rebbi Yose said, this refers to there but not to here. Rebbi Jonah said, it refers even to here, if they are close. Rebbi Mana said to him, did we not state “that the ox and its harness could pass between them”? Come and see, if the ox and its harness can pass between them, the roots can expand laterally, but if the ox and its harness cannot pass between them, the roots cannot expand laterally.

Rebbi Eliezer asked, from one to the other sixteen and on the sides twenty five? Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac asked: If they were next to a fence, does one plough the entire bet seah because of them? Rebbi Yose said, if you want that, we should give them their four bate seah, two bate seah here, two bate seah there. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, if there was one vine drawn over two seah, do you plough the ground under it and outside it for the harvester and his basket?

MISHNAH: Any useless or fruit trees are considered as if they were fig trees. If they would produce a fig cake in the weight of a talent of 60 Italic minas one ploughs the entire bet seah because of them. If less, one ploughs for them only as necessary. If one tree yields a “fig cake” but two do not, or two do and one does not, one only ploughs for them as necessary, unless there are three, and so from three to nine. If there are ten or more than ten one ploughs the entire bet seah because of them, whether they produce or not, since it is said (Ex. 34:21): : “You shall rest from ploughing and harvesting.” One does not have to mention ploughing and harvesting of the Sabbatical, but it refers to ploughing in the year preceding the Sabbatical in preparation of the Sabbatical, and harvesting of Sabbatical growth after the Sabbatical. Rebbi Ismael says, just as ploughing is voluntary so harvesting is voluntary; this excludes the harvest of the ‘omer.

MISHNAH: Any useless or fruit trees are considered as if they were fig trees. If they would produce a fig cake in the weight of a talent of 60 Italic minas one ploughs the entire bet seah because of them. If less, one ploughs for them only as necessary. If one tree yields a “fig cake” but two do not, or two do and one does not, one only ploughs for them as necessary, unless there are three, and so from three to nine. If there are ten or more than ten one ploughs the entire bet seah because of them, whether they produce or not, since it is said (Ex. 34:21): : “You shall rest from ploughing and harvesting.” One does not have to mention ploughing and harvesting of the Sabbatical, but it refers to ploughing in the year preceding the Sabbatical in preparation of the Sabbatical, and harvesting of Sabbatical growth after the Sabbatical. Rebbi Ismael says, just as ploughing is voluntary so harvesting is voluntary; this excludes the harvest of the ‘omer.

“One ploughs the entire bet seah because of them since it is said (Ex. 34:21): ‘You shall rest from ploughing and harvesting.’ ” That refers only to the first part, “one ploughs for them only as necessary because it is said ‘you shall rest from ploughing and harvesting.’ ”.

MISHNAH: Three trees belonging to three different owners are counted together and one may plough the entire bet seah for them. How much space must be between them? Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, so that the ox and its harness can pass.

HALAKHAH: “Three trees, etc.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Trees belonging to one owner and ground belonging to a second owner are counted together and one may plough the entire bet seah for them. Rebbi Yose said, we have stated more: Three trees belonging to three different owners are counted together and one may plough the entire bet seah until the New Year.

HALAKHAH: “Three trees, etc.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Trees belonging to one owner and ground belonging to a second owner are counted together and one may plough the entire bet seah for them. Rebbi Yose said, we have stated more: Three trees belonging to three different owners are counted together and one may plough the entire bet seah until the New Year.