משנה: הַנּוֹטֵעַ שְׁתֵּי שׁוּרוֹת שֶׁל קִישּׁוּאִין שְׁתֵּי שׁוּרוֹת שֶׁל דִּילּוּעִין שְׁתֵּי שׁוּרוֹת שֶׁל פּוּל הַמִּצְרִי מוּתָּר. שׁוּרָה שֶׁל קִישּׁוּאִין שׁוּרָה שֶׁל דִּילּוּעִין שׁוּרָה שֶׁל פּוּל הַמִּצְרִי אָסוּר. שׁוּרָה שֶׁל קִישּׁוּאִין שֶׁל דִּילּוּעִין שֶׁל פּוּל הַמִּצְרִי וְשׁוּרָה שֶׁל קִישּׁוּאִין רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר מַתִּיר וַחֲכָמִים אוֹסְרִין. נוֹטֵעַ אָדָם קִישּׁוּת וּדְלַעַת לְתוֹךְ גּוּמָא אַחַת וּבִלְבַד שֶׁתְּהֵא זוֹ נוֹטָה לְצַד זוֹ וְזוֹ נוֹטָה לְצַד זוֹ. (וְנוֹטֵעַ שֵׂעָר שֵׁל זוֹ לְכָאן וְשֵׁל זוֹ לְכָאן. שֶׁכֵּן מַה שֶׁאָֽסְרוּ חֲכָמִים לֹא גָֽזְרוּ אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי מַרְאִית הָעַיִן.) MISHNAH: If someone plants two rows of green melons, two rows of pumpkin, two rows of Egyptian beans, this is permitted75We are now talking about one field on which several kinds of vegetables are planted. If there are two rows, each of them appears as a separate planting if a certain amount of separation is kept between rows of different kinds; this is permitted. The plants enumerated here are those with meandering stems and very broad leaves; in that case, single rows are not easily kept apart and the field looks like kilaim. The restrictions apply only to these kinds of vegetables.. One row of melons, one row of pumpkin, one row of Egyptian beans is forbidden. One row each of melons, pumpkin, Egyptian beans, and one row of melons, Rebbi Eliezer permits but the Sages forbid.
One may plant melon and pumpkin in the same hole on condition that one of them points to one side, the other to the other side86They have to grow out of their common hole in two opposite directions. The hole presumably is square and the two plants are planted in opposite corners.. (One plants so that the hair of one be here, the hair of the other one there, for what the Sages forbade is only because of the misleading impression.)87In the Leyden ms., the text in parentheses is written on the margin. In many Mishnah mss., the text is missing. It must be an old gloss that entered the text; cf. Mishnah with Variant Readings, Institute of the Complete Israeli Talmud, Jerusalem 1972. If the text were original, the Halakhah would discuss it. In addition, the verb גזר in the acceptation “to decree” is Babylonian only (cf. Demay Chapter 1, Note 89).
הלכה: הַנּוֹטֵעַ שְׁתֵּי שׁוּרוֹת כו׳. חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר בְּמַחְלוֹקֶת. מָאן דְּאָמַר תַּמָּן שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה. אוּף הָכָא שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה. מָאן דְּאָמַר תַּמָּן בִּשְׁמוֹנֶה אוֹף הָכָא בִּשְׁמוֹנֶה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא. יָפֶה כֹּחַ מוּקְשָׁה בֵּין הַמּוּקְשִׁיּוֹת לְהַצִּיל בִּשְׁמוֹנֶה. HALAKHAH: “If one plants two rows”, etc. Ḥizqiah said, there is disagreement. He who says there 12 [cubits], here also 12 [cubits]77The reference is to the next Mishnah, where planting onions (with no spreading leaves at all) and melons (with very large, spreading leaves) in one field is discussed. It is established there that one row of melons or pumpkins needs a strip four cubits wide. Hence, two rows create a strip eight cubits wide. The distance between the two adjacent kinds, melon on one side and Egyptian beans on the other, therefore is eight cubits (plus two hand-breadths for an empty furrow on each side.) This corresponds to the opinion of R. Aqiba in the next Mishnah. However, the Sages in the next Mishnah require a swath 12 cubits wide between the two outer kinds, that is three rows of each kind. Hence, Ḥizqiah is of the opinion that the Mishnah here follows R. Aqiba and not the anonymous Sages, even though it is formulated as an anonymous statement.. He who says there eight, here also eight. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this Mishnah is according to everybody. A strip of melon is good enough among strips of melons to be saved by eight78In R. Joḥanan’s opinion, the sages require 12 cubits only between squash and onion, completely different plants. But melon and pumpkin grow in the same fashion (and, it seems, also Egyptian beans, which might not be beans in the botanical sense). In that case, the Sages also will require only strips 8 cubits wide and the Mishnah does not indicate that practice follows R. Aqiba..
אוֹרְכוֹ בְּכַמָּה חוֹבֵשׁ. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא נְלַמְּדֵינָהּ מִן הַכֶּרֶם. כְּמַה דְּתֵימַר גַּבֵּי כֶרֶם לֹא שַׁנְייָא הִיא אָרְכּוֹ הִיא הֶפְלֵיגוֹ. אַף הָכָא לֹא שַׁנְייָא הִיא אָרְכּוֹ הִיא הֶפְלֵיגוֹ. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּחִזְקִיָּה נִיחָא. מָאן דְּאָמַר תַּמָּן בִּשְׁמוֹנֶה אוֹף הָכָא בִשְׁמוֹנֶה. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אוֹרְכוֹ בְּכַמָּה חוֹבֵשׁ. אִין תֵּימַר בִּשְׁמוֹנֶה קַל וָחוֹמֶר לְמוּקְשָׁה בֵּין הַבְּצָלִים שֶׁלֹּא יַחְבִּישׁ אֶלָּא שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה. מַה אִם מוּקְשָׁה בֵּין הַמּוּקְשִׁיּוֹת שֶׁיַּפִּיתָה כּוֹחוֹ לְהַצִּיל בִּשְׁמוֹנֶה נֶחֱבַשׁ בִּשְׁמוֹנֶה. מוּקְשָׁה בֵּין הַבְּצָלִים שֶׁהֵירַעְתָּ כּוֹחוֹ לְהַצִּיל בִּשְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֶה לֹא כָּל־שֶׁכֵּן שֶׁלֹּא יֵחָבֵשׁ אֶלָּא בִשְׁמוֹנֶה. אִין תֵּימַר מוּקְשָׁה בֵּין הַבְּצָלִים אֵין נֶחֱבָשׁ אֶלָּא בִשְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה. קַל וָחוֹמֶר לְמוּקְשָׁה בֵּין הַמּוּקְשִׁיּוֹת שֶׁלֹּא יֵחָבֵשׁ אֶלָּא בִשְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה. How long does it have to be to jail79How long do the rows of vegetables have to be that the rules of “jailing” do apply, that one kind cannot be surrounded on all four sides by other kinds of vegetables.? Rebbi Zeïra said, let us infer it from a vineyard. Just as you say in regard to a vineyard that there is no difference between length and separation80Width is called here “separation” since all assertions about separations are formulated by the number of rows, i. e., by width. For vineyards, the main rule precribes the same separation in all directions, i. e., in a circle centered in the offending growth (Mishnah 5:5)., so here also there is no difference between length and separation. That is fine according to the opinion of Ḥizqiah; there eight81Eight cubits of separation are indicated both in Mishnah 3:6 for the planting of broad-leaved vegetables with other vegetables, as also in Mishnah 4:8 for the vineyard. (For single plantings in a vineyard, one needs a separation of 16 cubits, Mishnah 5:5). and here also eight82Eight cubits length of the planted row.. According to Rebbi Joḥanan, with how much will it jail? If you say with eight, is there an argument a fortiori83Given two predicate functions A(x,y,z, …), B(x,y,z, …) and a partial ordering < by severity. I. e., if A(x) expresses an action that is legal and B(x) one that is illegal, we note A(x) < B(x). Similarly, if both actions are illegal but the punishment for A(x) is less than that for B(x), then A(x) < B(x). The rule now is: if it is known that A(x1, …, xn) < B(x1, …, xn), but nothing is known about A(x1, …, xn, u) and B(x1, …, xn, u), then the consistency of the logical system requires the assertion A(x1, …xn, u) < B(x1,… xn, u) meaning that B(x1,… xn, u) cannot be strictly less severe than A(x1, … xn, u); but if in all other respects B is strictly more severe than A, it cannot be asserted that with respect to u B must be more severe than A. (Cf. H. Guggenheimer, Logical Problems in Jewish Tradition, in: Confrontations with Judaism, ed. Ph. Longworth, London, 1967, pp. 171–196.) that a strip of melons among onions will jail only with twelve? But a melon strip, which you empowered among melon strips to save by a mere eight, will be jailed by eight, melon strips among onions, which you weakened to save only by twelve, certainly will be jailed only by eight. If you say that a melon strip among onions will be jailed only by twelve, then an argument a fortiori shows that a melon strip among melons should be jailed only by twelve.
עָד כְּדוֹן בְּרוֹצֵף. בְּעוֹשֶׂה קְלָחִים יְחִידִים. כְּמַה דְּתֵימַר גַּבֵּי כֶרֶם לֹא שַׁנְייָא הוּא רוֹצֵף הוּא עוֹשֶׂה. אַף הָכָא לֹא שַׁנְיָא הוּא רוֹצֵף הוּא עוֹשֶׂה קְלָחִים יְחִידִים. So far if [the planting] is covering [the entire area]. What about producing single stalks? Just as you say of a vineyard that there is no difference between covering or producing [single stalks], so here also there is no difference between continuous planting or producing single stalks.
רִבִּי יַנַּאי אָמַר בְּמַחְלוֹקֶת שְׁנֵי מִינִין מִצְטָֽרְפִין לְהַצִּיל וְאֵין שְׁנֵי מִינִין מִצְטָֽרְפִין לֵיאָסֵר. רַב אָמַר דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא כְּשֵׁם שֶׁשְּׁנֵי מִינִין מִצְטָֽרְפִין לְהַצִּיל כָּךְ שְׁנֵי מִינִין מִצְטָֽרְפִין לֵיאָסֵר. מַתְנִיתִין מְסַייְעָא לְרִבִּי יִנַּאי דְּתַנִּינַן רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר מַתִּיר. מַתְנִיתִין פְּלִיגָא עַל רַב שׁוּרָה שֶׁל קִישּׁוּאִין שׁוּרָה שֶׁל דִּילּוּעִין שׁוּרָה שֶׁל פּוּל הַמִּצְרִי וְשׁוּרָה שֶׁל קִישּׁוּאִין. עַד שֶׁלֹּא נָטַע אֶת הָֽרְבִיעִית לֹא כְבָר נֶאֶסְרוּ. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁנָּטַע אַרְבַּעְתָּן כְּאַחַת. Rebbi Yannai said, it is a controversy whether two kinds join together to save but do not join together to prohibit84According to R. Yannai, when R. Eliezer permits four rows with the two middle ones of different kinds, he cannot forbid three rows of different kinds, and the previous statement about three single rows follows the Sages but not R. Eliezer, as noted later in this paragraph, since otherwise three are already forbidden and the fourth row, which makes matters worse, could not make the first three permitted again. According to Rav, everybody agrees that if between two rows of the same kind there are at least eight cubits distance, then R. Eliezer permits the planting, but in the case of only three rows he will join his colleagues in forbidding it.. Rav said, it is everybody’s opinion that just as two kinds join together to save so they do join together to prohibit. Our Mishnah supports Rebbi Yannai, as we have stated: “Rebbi Eliezer permits it.” Our Mishnah differs with Rav: “One row of melons, one row of pumpkin, one row of Egyptian beans, and one row of melons.” Before he started the fourth one, was it not already forbidden? Explain it that he planted the four rows simultaneously85This tortured explanation is needed only for Rav..
נוֹטֵעַ אָדָם קִישּׁוּת כו׳. תַּנֵּי מוּתָּר הוּא אָדָם לַעֲשׂוֹת בְּתוֹךְ שָׂדֵהוּ גוּמָא קְטַנָּה עֲמוּקָה טֶפַח וְלִזְרֹעַ בְּתוֹכוֹ אַרְבַּע זֵירְעוֹנִין וּלְהָפְכָּן לְאַרְבַּע רוּחוֹתֶיהָ. רִבִּי אַבָּא בַּר כַּהֲנָא שִׁמְעוֹן נְרָשִׁייָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ בְּנוֹטִין לְחוֹרֵבָה שָׁנוּ. רִבִּי מָנָא בָּעֵי אִם בְּנוֹטִין לְחוֹרֵבָה נִיתְנֵי שְׁמוֹנָה שְׁנַיִם מִיכָּן וּשְׁנַיִם מִיכָּן וּשְׁנַיִם מִיכָּן וּשְׁנַיִם מִיכָּן. “One may plant melon”, etc. It was stated88Tosephta Kilaim 2:9. There, the text reads “four kinds,” somewhat more explicit and less restrictive than the wording given here.: “One may make a small hole in one’s field, one hand-breadth deep, sow in it four seeds, and turn them to the four directions of the compass.” Rebbi Abba bar Cahana, Simeon of Nerash in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: That was taught regarding those which lean towards a dry spot89See above, Halakhah 1. One can turn each growing plant away from the others only if outside there is space, not in a field. Hence, the Mishnah, if interpreted according to this statement, disagrees with the Tosephta.. Rebbi Mana asked, if we deal with those that lean towards a dry spot, should we not state “eight,” two on each of the edges90The hole is square. An “edge” of the square is a semi-open interval which contains one of its endpoints but not the other. Then one may plant one seed at the endpoint and one at the midpoint of the edge, let the seed in the corner grow in the opposite direction of the diagonal, and the one planted in the middle of the edge perpendicular to the edge towards the outside. The question is not answered, but for broad-leaved plants the scenario is impossible.?