משנה: כֶּרֶם שֶׁהוּא נָטוּעַ עַל פָּחוֹת מֵאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר אֵינוֹ כֶרֶם. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים כֶּרֶם. וְרוֹאִין אֶת הָאֶמְצָעִיּוֹת כִּילּוּ אֵינָן. MISHNAH: A vineyard that is planted less that four cubits apart26This violates standard agricultural practice., Rebbi Simeon says that it is no vineyard. But the Sages say that it is a vineyard and one disregards the ones in the middle as if nonexistent27If every second vine is disregarded the remaining vines still are less than eight cubits apart and, hence, still form a vineyard. The argument of the Sages (made explicit in Babli Baba Batra 102b) is that vines planted too close to one another will not bear the best or the most fruit; hence, the vintner might plant too many vines at the start and then, when it becomes clear which vines grow best, he will take out the rest and use as wood and replant the best ones as a regular vineyard. Rebbi Simeon is of the opinion that a vineyard is planted for its yield, so he waits until the vineyard is thinned before he imposes the restrictions of a vineyard. (In the Babli, R. Simeon is interpreted to mean that nobody plants a vineyard with the intention of thinning.) The Sages think that planting for a vineyard makes a vineyard from the start.
It is not quite clear what the minimum distance is; cf. Chapter 4, Note 2. The cubit of 52.6 cm would give 210.4 cm as minimal distance of two vines. R. A. H. Nach defines the hand-breadth as 8.5 cm, which implies that 4 cubits of five hand-breadths each are 170 cm. Modern viticulture works with distances of 135 to 150 cm; one is best off by adopting the minimal interpretation of cubits..
הלכה: אָמַר לָהֶן רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹתָם שֶׁאַתֶּם אוֹמְרִים רוֹאִין אֶת הָאֶמְצָעִיּוֹת כִּילּוּ אֵינָן. הֲרֵי הֵן עִיקָּרוֹ שֶׁל כֶּרֶם. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה הָדָא אָֽמְרָה כְשֶׁהָיוּ שֵׁשׁ כְּנֶגֶד שֵׁשׁ. אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ חָמֵשׁ כְּנֶגֶד חָמֵשׁ. כָּל־עַמָּא מוֹדֵיי שֶׁהֵן רוֹאִין אֶת הָאֶמְצָעִיּוֹת כִּילּוּ אֵינָן. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא הָדָא דְתֵימַר בְּשֶׁהְיוֹ חָמֵשׁ כְּנֶגֶד חָמֵשׁ. אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ שֵׁשׁ כְּנֶגֶד שֵׁשׁ אִילּוּ אַתְּ רוֹאֶה אֶת הָאֶמְצָעִיּוֹת כִּילּוּ אֵינָן אֵילּוּ אֵילּוּ. מַהִי הָדָא דְתַנִּינָן רוֹאִין אֶת הָאֶמְצָעִיּוֹת כִּילּוּ אֵינָן. אָמַר רִבִּי הוּנָא שֶׁמּוּתָּר לְהַדְלוֹתָן עַל זַרְעוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא הָדָא מְסַייְעָא לְהַהִיא דְּאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אִם הָיוּ זְרָעִים בְתוֹךְ שִׁשָּׁה הַכֹּל אָסוּר. חוּץ לְשִׁשָּׁה גְּפָנִים מוּתָּרוֹת וְהַכֶּרֶם אָסוּר. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Simeon said to them: Those about which you say that one disregards the ones in the middle as if nonexistent, are the essence of the vineyard! Rebbi Ḥananiah29R. Ḥananiah and R. Mana disagree about the meaning of the last statement of R. Simeon. According to R. Ḥananiah, in the case of two rows of five vines each, if one disregards any vines numbered 2 and 4 in their rows, one retains two rows of three vines each forming a legal vineyard. But if one has two rows of 6 each, one eliminates either the even or the odd numbered vines; the ones eliminated would also form a vineyard and that is unacceptable in the opinion of R. Simeon. R. Mana has essentially the same argument, only he says that the disagreement concerns the first case, when one would have a vineyard in case one eliminates vines 2 and 4, but not if one eliminates 1, 3, 5. However, in the case of 6 or more vines, one always retains a valid vineyard (and the vines considered nonexistent do not give the possibility of sowing there since the distance from vine to remaining vines is less than 8 cubits.) said, that applies in the case where there are six parallel six. But if there are five parallel five, everybody agrees that one disregards the ones in the middle as if nonexistent. Rebbi Mana said, that means if there are five parallel five. But if there are six parallel six, if you disregard the ones in the middle as if nonexistent, these are like those! What does that mean which we have stated: One disregards the ones in the middle as if nonexistent? Rebbi Huna said, that one is permitted to draw them30If the domain at the border of the vineyard is sown with other produce, the shoots of the vines destined to be taken out can be drawn on a trellis that goes sideways over the produce, since the vines will be eliminated before they bear fruit. over his seeds. Rebbi Mana said, that supports what Rebbi Yose had said, that if one sows within six hand-breadths all is forbidden, outside of six hand-breadths single vines are permitted31In this interpretation, “single vines” are those planted too close and destined to be removed, even if initially planted in a vineyard pattern. and a vineyard is forbidden
שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר בָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהֵן חֲלוּקִין כָּאן כָּךְ חֲלוּקִין בִּשְׁכוּנַת קְבָרוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה וְלֹא דַמְייָא תַּמָּן מְרוּוָּחִין וּרְצָופָן יֵשׁ לָהֶן שְׁכוּנַּת קְבָרוֹת. רְצוּפָין וְרְוּוּחִין אֵין עֲלֵיהֶן שְׁכוּנַּת קְבָרוֹת. בְּרַם הָכָא מְרוּוָּחִין וּרְצָפָן בְּמַחְלוֹקֶת. רְצוּפִין וְרִיװְחָן דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל. בְּרַם הָכָא מַה פְלִיגִין בְּשֶׁבָּא וּמְצָאָן רְצוּפִין. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר אוֹמֵר אֲנִי גַּל נָפַל עֲלֵיהֶן וּרְצָפָן. וְרַבָּנָן אָמַר מְרוּוָּחִין הֵן וּרְצָפָן. Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan32This discussion is referred to in Babli Baba Batra 102b. A parallel to the text here is found in Yerushalmi Nazir 9:3, fol. 57b. The text there is slightly different from the text here. Since the Rome ms. here supports the text from Nazir, and the last sentences here show that both times the paragraphs are a confluence from texts from both sources, it is appropriate to give the full text of the paragraph there:
תמן תנינן כרם שהוא נטוע על פחות מד̇ אמות ר׳ שמעון אומר אינו כרם. וחכמים אומרים כרם. ורואין את האמצעיות כאילו אינן. שמעון בר בא בשם ר׳ יוחנן כשם שהן חלוקין כאן כך הן חולקין בשכונת קברות. א״ר יונה ולא דמייא תמן יש עליהן שכונת קברות. ברם הכא אין עליה שכונת קברות. א״ר יוסי ולא דמייא תמן מרװחין ורצפן במחלוקת. רצופין וריװחן דברי הכל. ברם הכא מהו פליגין. בשבא ומצאן רצופין ר״ש אומר גל נפל עליהן ורצפן. ורבנן אמרי מרװחין היו ורצפן. “There, we have stated: ‘A vineyard which is planted less that four cubits apart, Rebbi Simeon says it is no vineyard. But the Sages say it is a vineyard and one disregards the ones in the middle as if nonexistent.’ Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Just as they disagree here, they disagree about a graveyard. Rebbi Jonah said, one cannot compare these. There, they form a graveyard, here, they do not form a graveyard. Rebbi Yose said, one cannot compare these. There, if they were spaced apart and one moved them closer together, that is the disagreement. If they were close and one moved them apart, everybody would agree. But here, what is their disagreement? When one found them close together. Rebbi Simeon said, a landslide fell on them and compressed them. But the Sages say, were they spaced apart and somebody brought them close together?”: Just as they disagree here, they disagree about a graveyard33This refers to Mishnah Nazir9:3: “If somebody stumbles upon a grave (on his property; he did not know that the grave was there), he removes it and its surroundings (the earth that absorbed the decomposed flesh of the deceased, for reburial.) If he found two, he takes them and their surroundings. If he found three and between any two graves is a distance from 4 to 8 cubits, space for the bier and its carriers, that is a graveyard (and cannot be disturbed) and one has to check another adjacent 20 cubits.” In a baraita, quoted only in Babli Bava Batra 102a, but presupposed in the Yerushalmi, there is a discussion about a group of several graves that are found closer than 4 cubits together. The Sages think that these indicate haphazard burials which do not constitute a graveyard, but R. Simeon holds that one disregards alternate graves and the rest form a graveyard that may not be disturbed. The Babli explains the obvious switch of opinions between R. Simeon and the Sages in that R. Simeon holds that nobody plants vines for thinning, but that in graveyard there sometimes are emergency burials when one cannot observe all necessary distances, whereas the Sages hold that one plants a vineyard with the idea of selecting the best vines, but in a graveyard one never violates common decency by piling grave upon grave.. Rebbi Jonah said, one cannot compare these. There, if graves were spaced apart and one moved them together, they would form a graveyard34While it is forbidden to do so, if it is done, then according to everybody the sanctity of a graveyard will not be impaired.. When they were close together and one spaces them apart, that does not make a graveyard35This sentence, missing in Nazir and the Rome ms., is difficult to accept, since one always may make a new graveyard. What is meant is that the reburial does not retroactively make the burial place a graveyard. In a graveyard, the soil cannot be used for anything but burial. In a row of single graves, any soil that does not belong to the immediate surroundings of the graves may be used for any private purpose.. But here, if they were spaced apart and one moved them closer, that is the disagreement36While this is not mentioned in the Mishnah, it is assumed that the Sages expect the new plantings to be thinned and R. Simeon does not.. If they were close and one moved them apart, everybody would agree37This will create a vineyard.. But here38“Here” is the Mishnah in Nazir. This shows that the text in Nazir is the original one., what is their disagreement? When one found them close together. Rebbi Simeon said, a landslide fell on them and compressed them39Hence, they formed a graveyard whose sanctity cannot be lost.. But the Sages say, were they spaced apart and somebody brought them close together40This is a most unlikely scenario and can be disregarded. The setting of the Mishnah is the Land of Israel where every grave is expected to be Jewish.?