משנה: הָיָה רֹאשׁ תּוֹר יֶרֶק וְנִכְנַס לְתוֹךְ שְׂדֵה יֶרֶק אַחֵר מוּתָּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא נִרְאֶה כְּסוֹף שָׂדֵהוּ. הָֽיְתָה שָׂדֵהוּ זְרוּעָה יֶרֶק וְהוּא מְבַקֵּשׁ לִיטַּע בְּתוֹכָהּ שׁוּרָה שֶׁל יֶרֶק אַחֵר. רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא הַתֶּלֶם מְפוּלָּשׁ מֵרֹאשׁ הַשָּׂדֶה וְעַד רֹאשׁוֹ. וְרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר אוֹרֶךְ שִׁשָּׁה טְפָחִים וְרוֹחַב מְלוֹאוֹ. רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר רוֹחַב כִּמְלוֹא רוֹחַב הַפַּרְסָה. MISHNAH: It is permitted that a vertex of vegetables enter57As before, “enter” means that it touches the last row of vegetables, not that there should be a straight line on which the last plant of the ראש תור is bordered on both sides by plants of the field. a field of other vegetables, since it is visibly the end of its field58Visual separation is all that is needed.. If one’s field was sown with vegetables and he wants to plant in it a row of a different vegetable, Rebbi Ismael says, not unless he has an open furrow from one end of the field to the other59If the new vegetable is inside the field, there must be an empty open furrow on each side of the new vegetable. The six hand-breadths given as minimum separating distance in Mishnah 2:10 apply only to the distance between two vegetable fields, not to one row inside a field.. Rebbi Aqiba says, a length of six hand-breadths for a full width60“Full width” according to R. Simson means six hand-breadths; according to Maimonides it means the full depth of the furrow. Both explanations conllide with parts of the Halakhah.. Rebbi Jehudah says, the width must be the width of the sole of a foot61Exactly one hand-breadth. The language of R. Jehudah refers to the verse Deut. 11:10: “You did irrigate it with your foot like a vegetable garden.”.
הלכה: הָיָה רֹאשׁ תּוֹר כו׳. תַּנֵּי בַּר קַפָּרָא אֵינוֹ זוֹרֵעַ לְתוֹכָהּ אֶלָּא מִין אֶחָד בִּלְבַד. HALAKHAH: “A vertex62A quote from the Mishnah. However, the discussion is not about that sentence at all. In the opinion of R. Moses Margalit, the statement of Bar Qappara is out of place here and belongs to the Mishnah quoted last in the preceding Halakhah, about the ditch that is one hand-breadth deep. According to the more likely opinion of R. Eliahu Fulda, the statement refers to the one row of vegetables that one plants in a field of other vegetables., etc.” Bar Qappara stated: He sows in it only one kind.
מַה אָמַר רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּרוֹחַב. מַה אִין רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה חוֹבֵשׁ בְּשָׁלֹשׁ שׁוּרוֹת. אִית לֵיהּ רוֹחַב מְלוֹאוֹ. רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל שֶׁהוּא חוֹבֵשׁ בִּשְׁתֵּי רוּחוֹת לֹא כָּל־שֶׁכֵּן. מַה אָמַר רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּשׁוּרָה שֶׁיֶּרֶק בִּשְׂדֵה תְבוּאָה. מַה אִין רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה דְּהוּא מֵיקִל הָכָא הוּא מַחְמִיר תַּמָּן. רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל דְּהוּא מַחְמִיר הָכָא לֹא כָּל־שֶׁכֵּן דְּיַחְמִיר תַּמָּן. לֹא צוּרְכָא דְּלֹא מַה דְּאָמַר רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל תַּמָּן בְּרוֹחַב. כְּמַה דְּאַתְּ אָמַר תַּמָּן לֹא שַׁנְייָא הִיא רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה הִיא רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּרוֹחַב. What did Rebbi Ismael say about the width? Now if Rebbi Aqiba, who encloses it from three sides, requires a full width, Rebbi Ismael who encloses it by two rows63In the Rome ms: חובש משתי שורות, “encloses by two rows.” R. Aqiba permits the insert to be enclosed even from three sides. R. Ismael insists that strictly only two sides are permitted; therefore, he must require that the dividing empty furrow extend from one end of the field to the other., not so much more64For an argument a fortiori, R. Aqiba must be less restrictive than R. Ismael. This is the case since R. Aqiba requires only a separation along six hand-breadths. But then, in order for the argument to make sense, “a full width” must mean the maximum separation mentioned in the Mishnah, i. e., six hand-breadths. Otherwise, R. Ismael could be more restrictive than R. Aqiba even in regard to width. Hence, the explanation of Maimonides of the Mishnah cannot be accepted.? What does Rebbi Ismael say about a row of vegetables in a grain field65This is the topic of Mishnah 7; there a separation of six hand-breadths is quoted as universally accepted opinion.? Now if Rebbi Aqiba, who is more lenient here, is restrictive there, Rebbi Ismael, who is more restrictive here, certainly will be restrictive there! No, this is not necessarily so. What does Rebbi Ismael say there about width? As we say there, there is no difference between Rebbi Aqiba and Rebbi Ismael in matters of width66Since the relevant statement is anonymous. The corresponding statement of the Tosephta, Kilaim 2:13, reads: “Whether there be a row of melon or a row of any other vegetable in a grain field, a length of 10.5 cubits by a width of six hand-breadths.”.
שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שׁוּרָה אַחַת הָא שְׁתַּיִם אָסוּר. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ תְּרַוֵּיהוֹן אָֽמְרֵי לֹא שַׁנְייָא הִיא אַחַת הִיא שְׁתַּיִם. Samuel said, they taught only one row67“A row” mentioned in the Mishnah may mean “one row.” In Samuel’s opinion, two rows form a field and are subject to the rules of Mishnah 2:10., hence two are forbidden. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say that there is no difference between one and two rows.
רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר מוּתָּר לְהַבְקִיעַ אַרְבַּע שׁוּרוֹת בְּבִקְעָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיְּהוּ שְׁתֵּי שׁוּרוֹת הַחִיצוֹנוֹת נִידּוֹנוֹת כַּעֲרוּגָה. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא וּבִלְבַד שְׁלֹשָׁה בְּתוֹךְ שִׁשָּׁה. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is permitted to split four rows in an open field69בקעה (Arabic בֻּקעַה) everywhere is agricultural land accessible only by footpaths, not by public road. At such a place not visited by non-farmers, R. Simeon ben Laqish permits an insert of up to four rows in a field growing other kinds.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, only if the two outer rows be70Version of the Rome ms: “That they cannot be treated.” This reading seems to be the original one. Four rows are permitted only if those adjacent to the other crops are single rows, not garden beds, since otherwise no clean separation of the vegetable rows and the rest of the crop is possible. treated as garden beds. Rebbi Zeïra said, only if three are within six71The rows must be compact, not more than two hand-breadths allotted to each row. Together with a separation of six hand-breadths from the rest of the crop, this makes for a neat insert..
אָמַר רִבִּי הוּנָא טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה וְהִשְׁקִיתָ בְרַגְלְךָ כְּגַן הַיָּרָק. וְכַמָּה הִיא שִׁיעוּרָהּ שֶׁל פַּרְסָה טְפַח. Rebbi Ḥuna said, what is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah72In the Babli (Šabbat 85a), this is the opinion of R. Zeïra (Zera). It would appear that the author here is not the Galilean Rebbi Huna but the Babylonian Rav Huna, teacher of R. Zeïra. This paragraph can be added to the list of parallels given in the Yerushalmi in the name of a Babylonian and in the Babli in the name of a Galilean.? (Deut. 11:10) “That you irrigated with your feet as in a vegetable garden.” What is the measure of a foot sole? A hand-breadth.
תַּנִּינָן הָכָא דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה וְתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. אִלּוּ תַנִּיתָהּ הָכָא וְלֹא תַנִּיתָהּ תַּמָּן הֲוִינָן אָֽמְרִין מַה אִין רִבִּי יְהוּדָה דְּהוּא מַחְמִר הָכָא מֵיקִל תַּמָּן. רַבָּנִין דְּאִילֵּין מֵקִילִין הָכָא לֹא כָּל־שֶׁכֵּן יָקִילוּן תַּמָּן. הֲוֵי צוּרְכָא מַתְנֵי תַּמָּן. אוֹ אִילּוּ תַנִּיתָהּ תַּמָּן וְלֹא תַנִּיתָהּ הָכָא. הֲוִינָן אָֽמְרִין מַה אִין רַבָּנִן דְּאִינּוּן מַחְמִרִין תַּמָּן אִינּוּן מֵקִילִין הָכָא. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה דְּהוּא מֵיקִל תַּמָּן לֹא כָּל־שֶׁכֵּן דְּיָקִיל הָכָא. הֲוֵי צוּרְכָא מַתְנֵי הָכָא וְצוּרְכָא מַתְנֵי תַּמָּן. We have stated the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah here, and we have stated it there73In Mishnah 3:1, where the rabbis permit only five kinds in a garden bed but Rebbi Jehudah permits six.. If it had been stated here but not there, we would have said that just as Rebbi Jehudah who is restrictive here74Rebbi Jehudah requires a full hand-breadth of empty space as walkway between the two parts of the field. The rabbis require less, according to the argument here. The problem is that the rabbis are not mentioned here, nor are they in any parallel Tosephta. By the rules of decision accepted in the Babli, practice follows R. Aqiba against any one of his colleagues. If we accept this here, then the explanation of R. Aqiba’s statement in the Mishnah must follow Maimonides and the opinion of R. Simson becomes unacceptable! There is no indication that the Yerushalmi accepts that rule; in addition, R. Aqiba here disagrees with two of his colleagues, so that there is a two to one majority which rejects his position. We must assume that in the opinion of the Yerushalmi, the rabbis will be ready to accept any furrow as separation, without prescribing any minimal width. is permissive there, the rabbis who are permissive here certainly will be permissive there. Hence, it is necessary to state there. Or if it was stated there but not here, we would have said that just as the rabbis who are restrictive there are permissive here, Rebbi Jehudah who is permissive there certainly will be permissive here. Hence, it is necessary to state both here and there.