fence

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?

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?

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?

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?

Rebbi Jonah asked: If somebody planted five pumpkins and trained them to grow on a fence, does one give it the rules of a trellis?

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.

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.

MISHNAH: A bald spot in a vineyard: the House of Shammai say 24 cubits but the House of Hillel say 16 cubits. The circumference of a vineyard: the House of Shammai say 16 cubits but the House of Hillel say 12 cubits. What is a bald spot in a vineyard? A vineyard that dried up in the middle; if there are less than 16 cubits one should not bring seeds there. If there are 16 cubits, one allows it space to be tended and the rest one may sow. What is the circumference of a vineyard? Between the vineyard and the fence. If less than 12 cubits are there, one should not introduce seeds there. If 12 cubits are there, one gives it space for tending and sows the remaining area. Rebbi Jehudah says, that is only the fence of a vineyard. What is the circumference of a vineyard? A vineyard between two Vineyards. What is a fence? If it is ten hand-breadths high, and a ditch is ten deep and four wide.

MISHNAH: A bald spot in a vineyard: the House of Shammai say 24 cubits but the House of Hillel say 16 cubits. The circumference of a vineyard: the House of Shammai say 16 cubits but the House of Hillel say 12 cubits. What is a bald spot in a vineyard? A vineyard that dried up in the middle; if there are less than 16 cubits one should not bring seeds there. If there are 16 cubits, one allows it space to be tended and the rest one may sow. What is the circumference of a vineyard? Between the vineyard and the fence. If less than 12 cubits are there, one should not introduce seeds there. If 12 cubits are there, one gives it space for tending and sows the remaining area. Rebbi Jehudah says, that is only the fence of a vineyard. What is the circumference of a vineyard? A vineyard between two Vineyards. What is a fence? If it is ten hand-breadths high, and a ditch is ten deep and four wide.

MISHNAH: A bald spot in a vineyard: the House of Shammai say 24 cubits but the House of Hillel say 16 cubits. The circumference of a vineyard: the House of Shammai say 16 cubits but the House of Hillel say 12 cubits. What is a bald spot in a vineyard? A vineyard that dried up in the middle; if there are less than 16 cubits one should not bring seeds there. If there are 16 cubits, one allows it space to be tended and the rest one may sow. What is the circumference of a vineyard? Between the vineyard and the fence. If less than 12 cubits are there, one should not introduce seeds there. If 12 cubits are there, one gives it space for tending and sows the remaining area. Rebbi Jehudah says, that is only the fence of a vineyard. What is the circumference of a vineyard? A vineyard between two Vineyards. What is a fence? If it is ten hand-breadths high, and a ditch is ten deep and four wide.

Not only a fence, but even if he puts up laths, if between one lath and the next there is less that three hand-breadths it is considered a fence. Even standing grain and straw? Or does it agree with what Rebbi Ḥanina said: Nothing forbidden may form a separation to save? They are of the opinion that what is forbidden does form a separation to forbid.

Not only a fence, but even if he puts up laths, if between one lath and the next there is less that three hand-breadths it is considered a fence. Even standing grain and straw? Or does it agree with what Rebbi Ḥanina said: Nothing forbidden may form a separation to save? They are of the opinion that what is forbidden does form a separation to forbid.

Only if it is surrounded by a fence on all four sides? From what we have stated: “Between two vineyards,” that means even from one side only. Only if the fence encloses all of that side? Let us hear from the following that Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Yasa, said in the name of Rav Mattanah: There is no tail for a large vineyard and no circumference for a small vineyard. There is no tail for a large vineyard because one does not need it. Neither a circumference for a small vineyard to forbid more outside than inside; inside eight and outside twelve. What is a small vineyard? Three parallel three. Hence, three parallel three parallel three, [the vineyard] has a circumference. Rebbi Zeïra said, that means that if he made laths along three vines then [the vineyard] has a circumference.

Only if it is surrounded by a fence on all four sides? From what we have stated: “Between two vineyards,” that means even from one side only. Only if the fence encloses all of that side? Let us hear from the following that Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Yasa, said in the name of Rav Mattanah: There is no tail for a large vineyard and no circumference for a small vineyard. There is no tail for a large vineyard because one does not need it. Neither a circumference for a small vineyard to forbid more outside than inside; inside eight and outside twelve. What is a small vineyard? Three parallel three. Hence, three parallel three parallel three, [the vineyard] has a circumference. Rebbi Zeïra said, that means that if he made laths along three vines then [the vineyard] has a circumference.

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 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.

MISHNAH: If there are less than three hand-breadths of distance between the sticks of a partition fence made from sticks, so that a kid goat cannot enter, then that is a valid partition wall. Also, if a wall was torn down up to a length of ten cubits, that acts as a gate. If more than that, it is forbidden along the torn-down part. If it is torn down in many places, if what is standing is more than what is torn down, it is permitted, but if the torn-down part is more than the standing one, it is forbidden at the torn-down places.

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.

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.

Rebbi Jonah said: Rebbi Hoshaia asked, what do you say about that symbolic fence, on top or at the sides? If you say on top, so much more on the sides. If you say on the sides, then not on the top. If you say on the top, Rebbi Ḥaggai said it correctly. If you say from the sides, Rebbi Ḥaggai did not say anything. What do you want to say, if on top, it must be on top. Or from the sides, it is on the sides. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: Explain it if they were strung on forked poles.

Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Eudaimon of Haifa, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: In height even one hundred cubits. Rebbi Judan said, that is, for kilaim, but as regards the Sabbath, a symbolic fence should not be better than a beam. Rebbi Yose said, it is the same for kilaim and Sabbath. According to Rebbi Yose, what is the difference between a beam and a symbolic fence? A symbolic fence does not save from one side unless it is used to close all four sides; a beam saves in one direction. This may be compared to what Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rav Hamnuna: A symbolic fence does not save unless it seals all four sides.

Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Eudaimon of Haifa, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: In height even one hundred cubits. Rebbi Judan said, that is, for kilaim, but as regards the Sabbath, a symbolic fence should not be better than a beam. Rebbi Yose said, it is the same for kilaim and Sabbath. According to Rebbi Yose, what is the difference between a beam and a symbolic fence? A symbolic fence does not save from one side unless it is used to close all four sides; a beam saves in one direction. This may be compared to what Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rav Hamnuna: A symbolic fence does not save unless it seals all four sides.

Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Eudaimon of Haifa, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: In height even one hundred cubits. Rebbi Judan said, that is, for kilaim, but as regards the Sabbath, a symbolic fence should not be better than a beam. Rebbi Yose said, it is the same for kilaim and Sabbath. According to Rebbi Yose, what is the difference between a beam and a symbolic fence? A symbolic fence does not save from one side unless it is used to close all four sides; a beam saves in one direction. This may be compared to what Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rav Hamnuna: A symbolic fence does not save unless it seals all four sides.

Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Eudaimon of Haifa, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: In height even one hundred cubits. Rebbi Judan said, that is, for kilaim, but as regards the Sabbath, a symbolic fence should not be better than a beam. Rebbi Yose said, it is the same for kilaim and Sabbath. According to Rebbi Yose, what is the difference between a beam and a symbolic fence? A symbolic fence does not save from one side unless it is used to close all four sides; a beam saves in one direction. This may be compared to what Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rav Hamnuna: A symbolic fence does not save unless it seals all four sides.

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 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 and the rabbis asked before Rebbi Zeïra, does a symbolic fence save in a sukkah? He said to them, a symbolic fence saves in a sukkah. Does the end of the roofing save in a sukkah? He said to them, the end of the roofing does not save in a sukkah. What is the difference between them? One is made for the purpose, the other one is not made for the purpose. Rebbi Abbahu said, all these things are for discussion’s sake, but as far as teaching, it is forbidden to teach it. If this is forbidden for the minor commandment of sukkah, so much more for the strict commandment of Sabbath!

Rebbi Abun and the rabbis asked before Rebbi Zeïra, does a symbolic fence save in a sukkah? He said to them, a symbolic fence saves in a sukkah. Does the end of the roofing save in a sukkah? He said to them, the end of the roofing does not save in a sukkah. What is the difference between them? One is made for the purpose, the other one is not made for the purpose. Rebbi Abbahu said, all these things are for discussion’s sake, but as far as teaching, it is forbidden to teach it. If this is forbidden for the minor commandment of sukkah, so much more for the strict commandment of Sabbath!

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.

MISHNAH: If somebody plants one row on his own property and another row is on his neighbor’s property, and a private or a public road or a fence lower than ten hand-breadths are between them, they are counted together; if it is higher than ten hand-breadths, they are not counted together. Rebbi Jehudah says, if he lined them up on a common trellis, they are counted together.

It was stated: “Less than that is forbidden.” Without it, would we not have said that ten is forbidden, so much more nine? But what does it mean that “less is forbidden?” Would we not say that it becomes as if closed and would be permitted? It should become as if closed and be permitted; was it not stated: “Roots crossing a symbolic fence and entering within four cubits of a vineyard are permitted if they are deeper than three hand-breadths?” There is a difference, because the air of the vineyard surrounds. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob said to them: Do you not agree that depth is like height? Only that the air of the vineyard surrounds. It is reasonable to think that Rebbi Eliezer agrees with Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob but Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob does not agree with Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Eliezer agrees with Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob that depth is like height. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob does not agree with Rebbi Eliezer because the air of the vineyard surrounds.

MISHNAH: What is a trellis? If somebody plants a row of five vines along a fence ten hand-breadths high or a ditch ten hand-breadths deep and four wide, one gives it four cubits working space. The House of Shammai say one measures four cubits between the stems of the vines and the field. The House of Hillel say, between fence and field. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, anybody who affirms this is in error; if there are four cubits between the stems of the vines and the fence one gives it its working space and he may sow the rest. What is the working space of a vine? Six hand-breadths in every direction; Rabbi Aqiba says three.

MISHNAH: What is a trellis? If somebody plants a row of five vines along a fence ten hand-breadths high or a ditch ten hand-breadths deep and four wide, one gives it four cubits working space. The House of Shammai say one measures four cubits between the stems of the vines and the field. The House of Hillel say, between fence and field. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, anybody who affirms this is in error; if there are four cubits between the stems of the vines and the fence one gives it its working space and he may sow the rest. What is the working space of a vine? Six hand-breadths in every direction; Rabbi Aqiba says three.

MISHNAH: What is a trellis? If somebody plants a row of five vines along a fence ten hand-breadths high or a ditch ten hand-breadths deep and four wide, one gives it four cubits working space. The House of Shammai say one measures four cubits between the stems of the vines and the field. The House of Hillel say, between fence and field. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, anybody who affirms this is in error; if there are four cubits between the stems of the vines and the fence one gives it its working space and he may sow the rest. What is the working space of a vine? Six hand-breadths in every direction; Rabbi Aqiba says three.

HALAKHAH: It is difficult. Is it not forbidden anyhow for the House of Shammai as a vineyard? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this was taught about a curved trellis. In that case, it would not be forbidden as a vineyard without a fence. Rebbi Jonah inquired: May one sow in between? Is it in a straight line, that you say it is forbidden to sow in between? May one sow between the vines? As you say in the case of a row of gourds that it is forbidden to sow in between the pits, so here also it is forbidden to sow in between the vines.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Mishnah was taught about a straight trellis. In that case, would it not be forbidden as a vineyard without a fence? Let us say, it was stated because of the House of Hillel. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, it is reasonable to assume that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees with Rebbi Joḥanan that it was taught about a straight trellis because of the House of Hillel, and Rebbi Joḥanan agrees with Rebbi Simeon [ben Laqish] that it was taught about a curved trellis because of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri, since Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said that anybody who affirms this is in error. If you say it was taught about a straight trellis, what can be in error? What is the difference between him who says one measures from the roots of the vines and him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence? Rebbi Yose said, explain it if the stems were partially inside four cubits and partially outside of four cubits. For him who says one measures from the roots of the vine, all is in order. For him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence, where the string drawn from the fence ends it is forbidden, the rest is permitted. If there were two cubits, only two cubits are forbidden for him who says one measures from the roots of the vines, but for him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence, another two cubits are forbidden.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Mishnah was taught about a straight trellis. In that case, would it not be forbidden as a vineyard without a fence? Let us say, it was stated because of the House of Hillel. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, it is reasonable to assume that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees with Rebbi Joḥanan that it was taught about a straight trellis because of the House of Hillel, and Rebbi Joḥanan agrees with Rebbi Simeon [ben Laqish] that it was taught about a curved trellis because of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri, since Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said that anybody who affirms this is in error. If you say it was taught about a straight trellis, what can be in error? What is the difference between him who says one measures from the roots of the vines and him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence? Rebbi Yose said, explain it if the stems were partially inside four cubits and partially outside of four cubits. For him who says one measures from the roots of the vine, all is in order. For him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence, where the string drawn from the fence ends it is forbidden, the rest is permitted. If there were two cubits, only two cubits are forbidden for him who says one measures from the roots of the vines, but for him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence, another two cubits are forbidden.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Mishnah was taught about a straight trellis. In that case, would it not be forbidden as a vineyard without a fence? Let us say, it was stated because of the House of Hillel. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, it is reasonable to assume that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees with Rebbi Joḥanan that it was taught about a straight trellis because of the House of Hillel, and Rebbi Joḥanan agrees with Rebbi Simeon [ben Laqish] that it was taught about a curved trellis because of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri, since Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said that anybody who affirms this is in error. If you say it was taught about a straight trellis, what can be in error? What is the difference between him who says one measures from the roots of the vines and him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence? Rebbi Yose said, explain it if the stems were partially inside four cubits and partially outside of four cubits. For him who says one measures from the roots of the vine, all is in order. For him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence, where the string drawn from the fence ends it is forbidden, the rest is permitted. If there were two cubits, only two cubits are forbidden for him who says one measures from the roots of the vines, but for him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence, another two cubits are forbidden.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Mishnah was taught about a straight trellis. In that case, would it not be forbidden as a vineyard without a fence? Let us say, it was stated because of the House of Hillel. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, it is reasonable to assume that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees with Rebbi Joḥanan that it was taught about a straight trellis because of the House of Hillel, and Rebbi Joḥanan agrees with Rebbi Simeon [ben Laqish] that it was taught about a curved trellis because of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri, since Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said that anybody who affirms this is in error. If you say it was taught about a straight trellis, what can be in error? What is the difference between him who says one measures from the roots of the vines and him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence? Rebbi Yose said, explain it if the stems were partially inside four cubits and partially outside of four cubits. For him who says one measures from the roots of the vine, all is in order. For him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence, where the string drawn from the fence ends it is forbidden, the rest is permitted. If there were two cubits, only two cubits are forbidden for him who says one measures from the roots of the vines, but for him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence, another two cubits are forbidden.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Mishnah was taught about a straight trellis. In that case, would it not be forbidden as a vineyard without a fence? Let us say, it was stated because of the House of Hillel. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, it is reasonable to assume that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees with Rebbi Joḥanan that it was taught about a straight trellis because of the House of Hillel, and Rebbi Joḥanan agrees with Rebbi Simeon [ben Laqish] that it was taught about a curved trellis because of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri, since Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said that anybody who affirms this is in error. If you say it was taught about a straight trellis, what can be in error? What is the difference between him who says one measures from the roots of the vines and him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence? Rebbi Yose said, explain it if the stems were partially inside four cubits and partially outside of four cubits. For him who says one measures from the roots of the vine, all is in order. For him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence, where the string drawn from the fence ends it is forbidden, the rest is permitted. If there were two cubits, only two cubits are forbidden for him who says one measures from the roots of the vines, but for him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence, another two cubits are forbidden.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri, all three said the same thing. Rebbi Ismael, as we have stated: “About a small garden surrounded by a trellis, if there is room for the vintner and his basket on each side one may sow there, if not, it may not be sown.” Rebbi Jonah said, the vintner requires one cubit, his basket one cubit on each side. They wanted to say, for him who says one measures from the roots of the vine, all is in order. For him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence, do the stems not diminish the measure of four cubits? Explain it if they were clinging to the wall. But are there not only four and the rules of the trellis start with five? Rebbi Ḥananiah said, explain it that two vines are planted at a corner; if one stretches a rope one sees four intervals. Rebbi Yose, as we have stated: “If there are less than four cubits one should not bring seeds there.” For him who says one measures from the roots of the vine, all is in order. For him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence, does the stem not decrease the measure of four cubits? Explain it if it was clinging to the wall. And similarly Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri here. It is reasonable to assume that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Ismael will agree with Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri, but Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri will not agree with Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Ismael. Rebbi Yose will agree with Rebbi Ismael but Rebbi Ismael will not agree with Rebbi Yose.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri, all three said the same thing. Rebbi Ismael, as we have stated: “About a small garden surrounded by a trellis, if there is room for the vintner and his basket on each side one may sow there, if not, it may not be sown.” Rebbi Jonah said, the vintner requires one cubit, his basket one cubit on each side. They wanted to say, for him who says one measures from the roots of the vine, all is in order. For him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence, do the stems not diminish the measure of four cubits? Explain it if they were clinging to the wall. But are there not only four and the rules of the trellis start with five? Rebbi Ḥananiah said, explain it that two vines are planted at a corner; if one stretches a rope one sees four intervals. Rebbi Yose, as we have stated: “If there are less than four cubits one should not bring seeds there.” For him who says one measures from the roots of the vine, all is in order. For him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence, does the stem not decrease the measure of four cubits? Explain it if it was clinging to the wall. And similarly Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri here. It is reasonable to assume that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Ismael will agree with Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri, but Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri will not agree with Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Ismael. Rebbi Yose will agree with Rebbi Ismael but Rebbi Ismael will not agree with Rebbi Yose.

There is no difference whether one built a fence and then planted eleven vines or he planted eleven vines and then built a fence. If the middle vine is destroyed we have trellis and interrupted trellis. If the fence is destroyed, there is no trellis and no interrupted trellis. Rebbi Eudaimon, brother of Rebbi Yose, inquired: If he then rebuilt the fence, since the trellis was reconstituted, do you say that the interrupted trellis also was reconstituted?

There is no difference whether one built a fence and then planted eleven vines or he planted eleven vines and then built a fence. If the middle vine is destroyed we have trellis and interrupted trellis. If the fence is destroyed, there is no trellis and no interrupted trellis. Rebbi Eudaimon, brother of Rebbi Yose, inquired: If he then rebuilt the fence, since the trellis was reconstituted, do you say that the interrupted trellis also was reconstituted?

There is no difference whether one built a fence and then planted eleven vines or he planted eleven vines and then built a fence. If the middle vine is destroyed we have trellis and interrupted trellis. If the fence is destroyed, there is no trellis and no interrupted trellis. Rebbi Eudaimon, brother of Rebbi Yose, inquired: If he then rebuilt the fence, since the trellis was reconstituted, do you say that the interrupted trellis also was reconstituted?

There is no difference whether one built a fence and then planted eleven vines or he planted eleven vines and then built a fence. If the middle vine is destroyed we have trellis and interrupted trellis. If the fence is destroyed, there is no trellis and no interrupted trellis. Rebbi Eudaimon, brother of Rebbi Yose, inquired: If he then rebuilt the fence, since the trellis was reconstituted, do you say that the interrupted trellis also was reconstituted?

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.

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.

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 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: Shoulder stones come from anywhere. The contractor may bring them from anywhere. These are shoulder stones: Any which cannot be taken up with one hand, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose says shoulder stones are what their name indicates; all that can be carried on the shoulder by three’s or two’s. Somebody building a fence between his property and the public domain may dig down to the bedrock. What should he do with the soil? He makes heaps in the public domain and then uses it to improve [the public domain], the words of Rebbi Joshua. Rebbi Aqiba says, just as one may not damage the public domain, so one may not improve it. What should he do with the soil? He makes heaps on his own property in the way of those who manure. The same rule applies to somebody digging a cistern, a ditch, or a cave.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They stated only “between his property and the public domain”; hence, between his own and his neighbor’s properties [building] is forbidden in the Sabbatical year. But on the intermediate days of a holiday, even between his property and the public domain it is forbidden. About a breach that fences soil; but a breach that does not fence soil may be repaired in the Sabbatical year. We have stated so: “Any breach that fences soil one is forbidden to repair in the Sabbatical year; any breach that does not fence soil one may repair in the Sabbatical year.” That is, if it does not endanger the public, but if it endangers the public one may repair even if it does fence soil.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They stated only “between his property and the public domain”; hence, between his own and his neighbor’s properties [building] is forbidden in the Sabbatical year. But on the intermediate days of a holiday, even between his property and the public domain it is forbidden. About a breach that fences soil; but a breach that does not fence soil may be repaired in the Sabbatical year. We have stated so: “Any breach that fences soil one is forbidden to repair in the Sabbatical year; any breach that does not fence soil one may repair in the Sabbatical year.” That is, if it does not endanger the public, but if it endangers the public one may repair even if it does fence soil.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They stated only “between his property and the public domain”; hence, between his own and his neighbor’s properties [building] is forbidden in the Sabbatical year. But on the intermediate days of a holiday, even between his property and the public domain it is forbidden. About a breach that fences soil; but a breach that does not fence soil may be repaired in the Sabbatical year. We have stated so: “Any breach that fences soil one is forbidden to repair in the Sabbatical year; any breach that does not fence soil one may repair in the Sabbatical year.” That is, if it does not endanger the public, but if it endangers the public one may repair even if it does fence soil.

If somebody improved [his field] and died, may his son sow? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: If somebody improved [his field] and died, his son may sow; if he improved [his field] and sold it, it is forbidden to be sown. If [the buyer] transgressed and sowed, it is permitted since they did decide only on a fence that one may live with.

Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai was travelling in the Sabbatical when he saw somebody collecting Sabbatical [produce]. He said to him, is this not forbidden, is that not spontaneous growth? He said to him, are not you the one who permits it? He said to him, are not my colleagues disagreeing with me? He read for him (Eccl. 10:8): “He who tears down a fence will be bitten by a snake.” That is what happened to him.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “One does not give heave from incompletely processed produce for completely processed produce,” and here you say so? Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of a “fence” for the purification water, lest purification water become useless. What is more serious, robbing the tribe or [breaching] the “fence” for purification water? Let us hear from the following: “[If one gave heave of] olives for olives and in the future he will crush them, grapes for grapes and in the future he will press them, it is heave and he has to give heave a second time.” In this case there is both robbing the tribe and the “fence” for the purification water, but we have stated that it is heave and he has to give heave a second time. This proves that the “fence” for the purification water is more serious than robbing the tribe.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “One does not give heave from incompletely processed produce for completely processed produce,” and here you say so? Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of a “fence” for the purification water, lest purification water become useless. What is more serious, robbing the tribe or [breaching] the “fence” for purification water? Let us hear from the following: “[If one gave heave of] olives for olives and in the future he will crush them, grapes for grapes and in the future he will press them, it is heave and he has to give heave a second time.” In this case there is both robbing the tribe and the “fence” for the purification water, but we have stated that it is heave and he has to give heave a second time. This proves that the “fence” for the purification water is more serious than robbing the tribe.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “One does not give heave from incompletely processed produce for completely processed produce,” and here you say so? Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of a “fence” for the purification water, lest purification water become useless. What is more serious, robbing the tribe or [breaching] the “fence” for purification water? Let us hear from the following: “[If one gave heave of] olives for olives and in the future he will crush them, grapes for grapes and in the future he will press them, it is heave and he has to give heave a second time.” In this case there is both robbing the tribe and the “fence” for the purification water, but we have stated that it is heave and he has to give heave a second time. This proves that the “fence” for the purification water is more serious than robbing the tribe.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “One does not give heave from incompletely processed produce for completely processed produce,” and here you say so? Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of a “fence” for the purification water, lest purification water become useless. What is more serious, robbing the tribe or [breaching] the “fence” for purification water? Let us hear from the following: “[If one gave heave of] olives for olives and in the future he will crush them, grapes for grapes and in the future he will press them, it is heave and he has to give heave a second time.” In this case there is both robbing the tribe and the “fence” for the purification water, but we have stated that it is heave and he has to give heave a second time. This proves that the “fence” for the purification water is more serious than robbing the tribe.

What would Rebbi Yose say here? Since Rebbi Meïr takes “robbing the tribe” lightly but takes the “fence” for purification water seriously, Rebbi Yose who takes “robbing the tribe” seriously, certainly must take the “fence” for purification water seriously! It was found stated in the name of Rebbi Yose: “One may not give olives as heave for oil or grapes for wine; if one did, his heave is heave and he does not have to give heave [a second time], the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose says, the House of Shammai say one gives heave but the House of Hillel say one does not give heave. Everybody agrees that if he gave heave, he does not have to give heave a second time.” There is proof that Rebbi Meïr takes “robbing the tribe” lightly but the “fence” for purification water seriously, Rebbi Yose takes “robbing the tribe” seriously but the “fence” for purification water lightly!

What would Rebbi Yose say here? Since Rebbi Meïr takes “robbing the tribe” lightly but takes the “fence” for purification water seriously, Rebbi Yose who takes “robbing the tribe” seriously, certainly must take the “fence” for purification water seriously! It was found stated in the name of Rebbi Yose: “One may not give olives as heave for oil or grapes for wine; if one did, his heave is heave and he does not have to give heave [a second time], the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose says, the House of Shammai say one gives heave but the House of Hillel say one does not give heave. Everybody agrees that if he gave heave, he does not have to give heave a second time.” There is proof that Rebbi Meïr takes “robbing the tribe” lightly but the “fence” for purification water seriously, Rebbi Yose takes “robbing the tribe” seriously but the “fence” for purification water lightly!

What would Rebbi Yose say here? Since Rebbi Meïr takes “robbing the tribe” lightly but takes the “fence” for purification water seriously, Rebbi Yose who takes “robbing the tribe” seriously, certainly must take the “fence” for purification water seriously! It was found stated in the name of Rebbi Yose: “One may not give olives as heave for oil or grapes for wine; if one did, his heave is heave and he does not have to give heave [a second time], the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose says, the House of Shammai say one gives heave but the House of Hillel say one does not give heave. Everybody agrees that if he gave heave, he does not have to give heave a second time.” There is proof that Rebbi Meïr takes “robbing the tribe” lightly but the “fence” for purification water seriously, Rebbi Yose takes “robbing the tribe” seriously but the “fence” for purification water lightly!

What would Rebbi Yose say here? Since Rebbi Meïr takes “robbing the tribe” lightly but takes the “fence” for purification water seriously, Rebbi Yose who takes “robbing the tribe” seriously, certainly must take the “fence” for purification water seriously! It was found stated in the name of Rebbi Yose: “One may not give olives as heave for oil or grapes for wine; if one did, his heave is heave and he does not have to give heave [a second time], the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose says, the House of Shammai say one gives heave but the House of Hillel say one does not give heave. Everybody agrees that if he gave heave, he does not have to give heave a second time.” There is proof that Rebbi Meïr takes “robbing the tribe” lightly but the “fence” for purification water seriously, Rebbi Yose takes “robbing the tribe” seriously but the “fence” for purification water lightly!

Rebbi Simon says, Rebbi Eliezer stays with his opinion. Just as he says there, all that is defective was in his hand, so he says here all that is impure is in his hand. Rebbi Zeїra asked, may we not say that Rebbi Eliezer said it only because of a fence? Does not Rebbi Eliezer agree that for a seah lifted from ṭevel he must give a name to its tithes? If you say the seah which fell is the seah which came up, it would not be necessary to give a name to its tithes! Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Zeїra is correct since we have stated after this: “A seah of pure heave which fell into a hundred of impure profane produce,” and Rebbi Eliezer does not disagree! The colleagues argued before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Simon is correct, because otherwise would one burn heave because of a “fence”? He said to them, are the six doubts which we have stated not because of their “fences”? Do we not also burn here because of its “fence”? The colleagues said, we asked before Rebbi Yose: In any case, if it is impure heave, it should be burned, if it is profane, why could it not become impure? He said to us, is it not eaten as heave? Heave cannot be eaten except if it is pure, maybe impure? Do you not agree that if a doubt of impurity arose in its place that he cannot burn it? What is the difference whether a doubt of impurity arose at another place or at its place? But if you want to question, then question what Rebbi Hoshaiah stated, since Rebbi Hoshaiah stated: “A seah of pure heave that fell into 100 seah of impure heave.”

Rebbi Simon says, Rebbi Eliezer stays with his opinion. Just as he says there, all that is defective was in his hand, so he says here all that is impure is in his hand. Rebbi Zeїra asked, may we not say that Rebbi Eliezer said it only because of a fence? Does not Rebbi Eliezer agree that for a seah lifted from ṭevel he must give a name to its tithes? If you say the seah which fell is the seah which came up, it would not be necessary to give a name to its tithes! Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Zeїra is correct since we have stated after this: “A seah of pure heave which fell into a hundred of impure profane produce,” and Rebbi Eliezer does not disagree! The colleagues argued before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Simon is correct, because otherwise would one burn heave because of a “fence”? He said to them, are the six doubts which we have stated not because of their “fences”? Do we not also burn here because of its “fence”? The colleagues said, we asked before Rebbi Yose: In any case, if it is impure heave, it should be burned, if it is profane, why could it not become impure? He said to us, is it not eaten as heave? Heave cannot be eaten except if it is pure, maybe impure? Do you not agree that if a doubt of impurity arose in its place that he cannot burn it? What is the difference whether a doubt of impurity arose at another place or at its place? But if you want to question, then question what Rebbi Hoshaiah stated, since Rebbi Hoshaiah stated: “A seah of pure heave that fell into 100 seah of impure heave.”

Rebbi Simon says, Rebbi Eliezer stays with his opinion. Just as he says there, all that is defective was in his hand, so he says here all that is impure is in his hand. Rebbi Zeїra asked, may we not say that Rebbi Eliezer said it only because of a fence? Does not Rebbi Eliezer agree that for a seah lifted from ṭevel he must give a name to its tithes? If you say the seah which fell is the seah which came up, it would not be necessary to give a name to its tithes! Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Zeїra is correct since we have stated after this: “A seah of pure heave which fell into a hundred of impure profane produce,” and Rebbi Eliezer does not disagree! The colleagues argued before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Simon is correct, because otherwise would one burn heave because of a “fence”? He said to them, are the six doubts which we have stated not because of their “fences”? Do we not also burn here because of its “fence”? The colleagues said, we asked before Rebbi Yose: In any case, if it is impure heave, it should be burned, if it is profane, why could it not become impure? He said to us, is it not eaten as heave? Heave cannot be eaten except if it is pure, maybe impure? Do you not agree that if a doubt of impurity arose in its place that he cannot burn it? What is the difference whether a doubt of impurity arose at another place or at its place? But if you want to question, then question what Rebbi Hoshaiah stated, since Rebbi Hoshaiah stated: “A seah of pure heave that fell into 100 seah of impure heave.”

Rebbi Benjamin ben Gidul asked: If he had sown vetch? If he had sown heave from outside the Land? They said to him, it is a “fence”, and there is no “fence” for a “fence”.

Rebbi Benjamin ben Gidul asked: If he had sown vetch? If he had sown heave from outside the Land? They said to him, it is a “fence”, and there is no “fence” for a “fence”.

Rebbi Benjamin ben Gidul asked: If he had sown vetch? If he had sown heave from outside the Land? They said to him, it is a “fence”, and there is no “fence” for a “fence”.

When did Simeon ben Cahana live? In the days of Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Simeon bar Cahana was supporting Rebbi Eliezer. They passed by a fence. He said to him, bring me a sliver as a toothpick. He changed his mind and told him, do not bring me anything; if everybody would do that, the fence of this man would be gone. Rebbi Ḥaggai was supporting Rebbi Zeïra. A person passed by who was carrying a load of chips. He said to him, bring me a chip as a toothpick. He changed his mind and told him, do not bring me anything; if everybody would do that, the load of this man would be gone. Is not Rebbi Zeïra particularly pious? No, he told us that we should observe the words of our Creator.

When did Simeon ben Cahana live? In the days of Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Simeon bar Cahana was supporting Rebbi Eliezer. They passed by a fence. He said to him, bring me a sliver as a toothpick. He changed his mind and told him, do not bring me anything; if everybody would do that, the fence of this man would be gone. Rebbi Ḥaggai was supporting Rebbi Zeïra. A person passed by who was carrying a load of chips. He said to him, bring me a chip as a toothpick. He changed his mind and told him, do not bring me anything; if everybody would do that, the load of this man would be gone. Is not Rebbi Zeïra particularly pious? No, he told us that we should observe the words of our Creator.

MISHNAH: If somebody plants for fences or building logs he is exempt from ‘orlah. Rebbi Yose says, even if he says the inner part is for food, the outer part for a fence, the inner part is obligated but the outer is exempt.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody plants for fences or building logs he is exempt,” etc. It is written (Lev. 19:23): “If you plant any food tree.” What is for food is obligated; for fencing, logs, or wood it is exempt. Then the one for food even if he intended it as a fence should be obligated! The verse says, “a food tree.”

It was stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, when has this been said? If he planted for fencing, logs, or wood, kinds appropriate for that use. If he planted an inappropriate kind it is obligated.” Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said it correctly, what is the reason of the rabbis? Rebbi Zeïra said, if he changed the way it is usually planted: For wood tightly together, for logs cutting off branches, for a fence the location of the fence proves it.

It was stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, when has this been said? If he planted for fencing, logs, or wood, kinds appropriate for that use. If he planted an inappropriate kind it is obligated.” Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said it correctly, what is the reason of the rabbis? Rebbi Zeïra said, if he changed the way it is usually planted: For wood tightly together, for logs cutting off branches, for a fence the location of the fence proves it.

Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: If he planted the lower part as fence but the upper part for food, or the lower part for food but the upper part as fence? He said to him, one is like the other, whether the upper part for food but the lower part as fence, or the lower part for food but the upper part as fence. How does one know? He brings a string and ties it as a sign: So far as fence, the excess for food.

Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: If he planted the lower part as fence but the upper part for food, or the lower part for food but the upper part as fence? He said to him, one is like the other, whether the upper part for food but the lower part as fence, or the lower part for food but the upper part as fence. How does one know? He brings a string and ties it as a sign: So far as fence, the excess for food.

Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: If he planted the lower part as fence but the upper part for food, or the lower part for food but the upper part as fence? He said to him, one is like the other, whether the upper part for food but the lower part as fence, or the lower part for food but the upper part as fence. How does one know? He brings a string and ties it as a sign: So far as fence, the excess for food.

Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: If he planted the lower part as fence but the upper part for food, or the lower part for food but the upper part as fence? He said to him, one is like the other, whether the upper part for food but the lower part as fence, or the lower part for food but the upper part as fence. How does one know? He brings a string and ties it as a sign: So far as fence, the excess for food.

Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: If he planted the lower part as fence but the upper part for food, or the lower part for food but the upper part as fence? He said to him, one is like the other, whether the upper part for food but the lower part as fence, or the lower part for food but the upper part as fence. How does one know? He brings a string and ties it as a sign: So far as fence, the excess for food.

Rebbi Zeïra asked: One understands if the lower part is for a fence but the upper part for food, but the lower part for food but the upper part as fence? It grows out of something forbidden and you say so? Rebbi Zeïra follows his own opinion, as Rebbi Zeira said in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: An onion from kilaim in a vineyard which 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.

Rebbi Zeïra asked: One understands if the lower part is for a fence but the upper part for food, but the lower part for food but the upper part as fence? It grows out of something forbidden and you say so? Rebbi Zeïra follows his own opinion, as Rebbi Zeira said in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: An onion from kilaim in a vineyard which 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.

If he planted as a fence and then thought to use it for food, it goes after his thought. [If he first thought to use it] for food and then thought to use it as a fence, his [intent] cannot be accepted. If he planted as a fence the first year and afterwards thought to use it for food, since he thought to obligate it is obligated. But did we not state: “Rebbi Yose says, even if the inner part is for food, the outer part as fence, the inner part is obligated but the outer is exempt”? There, what is for food is always for food, for a fence always for a fence, but here, since he proceeded with a thought of obligation, it is obligated.

If he planted as a fence and then thought to use it for food, it goes after his thought. [If he first thought to use it] for food and then thought to use it as a fence, his [intent] cannot be accepted. If he planted as a fence the first year and afterwards thought to use it for food, since he thought to obligate it is obligated. But did we not state: “Rebbi Yose says, even if the inner part is for food, the outer part as fence, the inner part is obligated but the outer is exempt”? There, what is for food is always for food, for a fence always for a fence, but here, since he proceeded with a thought of obligation, it is obligated.

If he planted as a fence and then thought to use it for food, it goes after his thought. [If he first thought to use it] for food and then thought to use it as a fence, his [intent] cannot be accepted. If he planted as a fence the first year and afterwards thought to use it for food, since he thought to obligate it is obligated. But did we not state: “Rebbi Yose says, even if the inner part is for food, the outer part as fence, the inner part is obligated but the outer is exempt”? There, what is for food is always for food, for a fence always for a fence, but here, since he proceeded with a thought of obligation, it is obligated.

If he planted as a fence and then thought to use it for food, it goes after his thought. [If he first thought to use it] for food and then thought to use it as a fence, his [intent] cannot be accepted. If he planted as a fence the first year and afterwards thought to use it for food, since he thought to obligate it is obligated. But did we not state: “Rebbi Yose says, even if the inner part is for food, the outer part as fence, the inner part is obligated but the outer is exempt”? There, what is for food is always for food, for a fence always for a fence, but here, since he proceeded with a thought of obligation, it is obligated.

If he planted as a fence and then thought to use it for food, it goes after his thought. [If he first thought to use it] for food and then thought to use it as a fence, his [intent] cannot be accepted. If he planted as a fence the first year and afterwards thought to use it for food, since he thought to obligate it is obligated. But did we not state: “Rebbi Yose says, even if the inner part is for food, the outer part as fence, the inner part is obligated but the outer is exempt”? There, what is for food is always for food, for a fence always for a fence, but here, since he proceeded with a thought of obligation, it is obligated.

If he planted as a fence and then thought to use it for food, it goes after his thought. [If he first thought to use it] for food and then thought to use it as a fence, his [intent] cannot be accepted. If he planted as a fence the first year and afterwards thought to use it for food, since he thought to obligate it is obligated. But did we not state: “Rebbi Yose says, even if the inner part is for food, the outer part as fence, the inner part is obligated but the outer is exempt”? There, what is for food is always for food, for a fence always for a fence, but here, since he proceeded with a thought of obligation, it is obligated.

If he planted as a fence for three years, afterwards thought to use it for food, and it grew more? Rebbi Jeremiah said the addition is exempt, Rebbi Abba said the addition is obligated. Rebbi Yose said, the opinion of Rebbi Jeremiah seems to be difficult but it is only reasonable, as we have stated: “If a field became one-third ripe in the possession of a Gentile and a Jew bought it, Rebbi Aqiba says the addition is exempt. But the Sages say, the addition is obligated.” In our case the stem is exempt and its addition should be obligated?

An exempt root exempts. But did we not state: “Rebbi Yose says, even if the inner part is for food, the outer part as fence, the inner part is obligated but the outer is exempt”? Should not the outer part make the inner exempt? Rebbi Zeïra said it anonymously, Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: He might think about it to obligate it.

An ‘orlah walnut which one planted, and similarly, an egg of idol worship which turned into a chick. Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Josia: Ḥizqiah and Cahana differ. Cahana said it is permitted, Ḥizqiah said it is forbidden. In the opinion of Ḥizqiah it should be impossible for an egg of idol worship to become a chick. What is this about? If someone squashed it, there is no chick. If he brought it inside the lattice enclosure, come and look: If he worshipped it it is not forbidden; because he brought it inside the grating should it be forbidden? Rebbi Yudan the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said, explain it if he used it to fence in the idol.

From a rock in the sea higher than ten hand-breadths one transports neither from it to the sea nor from the sea onto it. If it was less than this it is permitted. What is the difference between a rock and a ship? A ship rises and falls; a rock stays in its place. But is it not karmelit? Is it permitted to move on karmelit only four cubits? Rebbi Ila said, it refers to the beginning: “from a rock in the sea higher than ten hand-breadths one moves neither from it to the sea nor from the sea onto it.” If it was higher it becomes like a fence made for agriculture where inside one is permitted to transport only four cubits. If it was lower one transports from it to the sea and from the sea onto it, and one transports up to two bet se’ah. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, two adjacent karmeliot, may one transport from one to the other? Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Hillel said, since the sea surrounds it from all sides it is considered as a single karmelit.

It happened that Eleazar ben Dama was bitten by a snake and Jacob from Kefar-Sama came to heal him in the name of Jesus ben Pandera, but Rebbi Ismael prevented him. He told him, I shall bring a proof that he can heal me. He could not bring proof before he died. Rebbi Ismael said to him, you are blessed, ben Dama, that you left this world in peace and did not tear down the fences of the Sages, as it is written, he who tears down a fence will be bitten by a snake. But did not a snake bite him? But that it will not bite him in the Future World. What could he have said? Which a person should do and live by them.

If he made a stone fence at the entrance to the alley, ten [hand-breadths] high and four wide, it permits the alley from inside and out. If there had been a stone fence, if it reduces to ten hand-breadths within three it needs a beam, otherwise it does not need a beam. There are Tannaim who state, within four [cubits]. He who says, within three [cubits], the rabbis. He who says, within four [cubits], Rebbi Meїr. If there was a slope in the middle of the alley, for those at the high end it acts as a ditch, for those at the low end as a stone fence.

If he made a stone fence at the entrance to the alley, ten [hand-breadths] high and four wide, it permits the alley from inside and out. If there had been a stone fence, if it reduces to ten hand-breadths within three it needs a beam, otherwise it does not need a beam. There are Tannaim who state, within four [cubits]. He who says, within three [cubits], the rabbis. He who says, within four [cubits], Rebbi Meїr. If there was a slope in the middle of the alley, for those at the high end it acts as a ditch, for those at the low end as a stone fence.

If he made a stone fence at the entrance to the alley, ten [hand-breadths] high and four wide, it permits the alley from inside and out. If there had been a stone fence, if it reduces to ten hand-breadths within three it needs a beam, otherwise it does not need a beam. There are Tannaim who state, within four [cubits]. He who says, within three [cubits], the rabbis. He who says, within four [cubits], Rebbi Meїr. If there was a slope in the middle of the alley, for those at the high end it acts as a ditch, for those at the low end as a stone fence.