משנה: הַמַּדְלֶה אֶת הַגֶּפֶן עַל מִקְצַת אפיפיירות לֹא יָבִיא זֶרַע אֶל תַּחַת הַמּוֹתָר וְאִם הֵבִיא לֹא קִידֵּשׁ. וְאִם הוֹלֵךְ הֶחָדָשׁ אָסוּר. וְכֵן הַמַּדְלֶה עַל מִקְצַת אִילָן סְרָק. הַמַּדְלֶה אֶת הַגֶּפֶן עַל מִקְצַת אִילַן מַאֲכָל מוּתָּר לְהָבִיא זֶרַע אֶל תַּחַת הַמּוֹתָר. וְאִם הוֹלֵךְ הֶחָדָשׁ יַחֲזִירֶנּוּ. מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁהָלַךְ רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אֶצֶל רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל מִכְּפַר עֲזִיז הַרְאֵהוּ גֶּפֶן שֶׁהוּא מוּדְלֶה עַל מִקְצַת תְּאֵינָה. אָמַר לוֹ מַה אֲנִי לְהָבִיא זֶרַע תַּחַת הַמּוֹתָר אָמַר לוֹ מוּתָּר. וְהַעֲלֵהוּ מִשָּׁם לְבֵית מְגִינַייָא וְהַרְאֵהוּ גֶּפֶן שֶׁהוּא מוּדְלֶה עַל מִקְצַת הַקּוֹרָה וְסַדַּן שֶׁל שִׁקְמָה וּבוֹ קוֹרוֹת הַרְבֶּה אָמַר לוֹ תַּחַת הַקּוֹרָה הַזּוֹ אָסוּר וְהַשְּׁאָר מוּתָּר. אֵי זֶהוּ אִילַן סְרָק כָּל־שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה פֵירוֹת. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר הַכֹּל אִילַן סְרָק חוּץ מִן הַזַּיִת וּמִן הַתְּאֵינָה. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר כֹּל שֶׁאֵין כָּמוֹהוּ נוֹטְעִין שָׂדוֹת שְׁלֵימוֹת הֲרֵי זֶה אִילַן סְרָק. MISHNAH: If somebody trains a vine over part of a papyrus38Definition of the Gaonic commentary to Kelim 17.3. Some sources here and in Kelim have אפפיריו, a medieval commentator writes הפיפיריות. The latter reading, seeing in the prothetic א the definite article ה, is supported by the Halakhah which uses פיפור, פיפר and the similar reading of most commentaries in Kelim. Most moderns see in the word a form of Greek πάπυρος (but this fits better with Tosephta Kelim b.m. 5:15, כלי פפיר “paper vessels”.) According to the Geonim, one takes rope from papyrus leaves (according to Maimonides, the reeds themselves) and puts them crosswise into a frame in order to form a platform that will be supported by posts. Sources confirming the use of papyrus rope in Antiquity are adduced by Loew in Krauss’s Dictionary, s. v. פיפור.
{In view of the formal parallelism between “part of a papyrus” and “part of a futile tree”, “part of a fig tree”, one might also take papyrus as a living plant, rather than a rope or mat of papyrus fibers.
Papyrus antiquorum, mostly perennial grassy plants cultivated throughout the ancient world, had multiple commercial uses: e. g., Cyperus esculentus with edible, oil-rich bulbs (Bulbuli Trasi,Dulcinia), Cyperus officinalis, used medically, Cyperus textilis, used in basket-weaving and paper manufacture. A papyrus plant growing near a vine would therefore also make sense in a discussion of kilaim. (E. G.)}, he should not sow under the rest, but if he did, it does not become sanctified39It is clear from the last sentence in the Mishnah that one speaks here of a single vine, not a vineyard or a trellis of five vines. Therefore, only a minimal distance has to be kept from the stem of the vine. Since the vine will expand, and the area below the part of the papyrus not covered by the branches and leaves of the vine is certainly more than a cubit away from the stem and can be used for other crops. However, if either the sown plants or the vine expand so that now parts of the plants are directly under the vine, the plants become forbidden. A prudent farmer, therefore, will not even start sowing close to the vine.. If the new growth expands it becomes forbidden. The same applies to one who trains over parts of a futile tree40In modern Hebrew, the term means “non-fruit-bearing tree” and סרק (2) has the general connotation of “useless, abortive”. [סרק (1) means “to comb”.] The word may be derived from the root that appears as Arabic סרק, Assyrian שרק, “to rob” (as in Saracen), a tree which robs the farmer of his labor if he would tend it. It is clear from the next Mishnah that a tree bearing cheap fruit is also אילן סרק. Because it does not bear high quality fruit, it has the same status as a rope or a beam..
If somebody trains a vine over part of a fruit tree he may sow under the rest. If new grows expands, he must move it41He must move the vine to reestablish the required separation..
It happened that Rebbi Joshua visited Rebbi Ismael from Kefar Aziz42This is the reading of the Leyden ms. and the texts dependent on it. All other Mishnah texts have: “Rebbi Joshua visited Rebbi Ismael at Kefar Aziz”, לכפר instead of מכפר. In that case, the host is R. Ismael (ben Elisha), the student of R. Joshua, who should have known his teacher’s opinion. It therefore seems likely that the Yerushalmi version is superior and the host is a minor figure mentioned only here. The paragraph establishes the previous Mishnah as R. Joshua’s.. He showed him a vine trained over parts of a fig tree and asked, may I sow under the rest? He told him, it is permitted. He took him from there to the armory and showed him a vine trained over part of a beam and a sycamore stump on which were many beams. He said to him, under that one beam it is forbidden, the rest is permitted.
What is a futile tree? One which does not bear fruit. Rebbi Meïr says, every tree is futile except olive and fig trees. Rebbi Yose says, a futile tree is one of which one does not plant entire orchards.
הלכה: חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה וְעַד אַרְבָּעָה הִיא מַתְנִיתָא פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה כְסָתוּם מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה וְעַד אַרְבָּעָה מַשְׁלִים אַרְבָּעָה נַחַת הוּא לָהּ. עַד הֵיכָן. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אִידִי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ עַד אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת. רִבִּי אָחָא רִבִּי חִינְנָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ עַד שֵׁשׁ אַמּוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא אָֽזְלִית לְקֵיסָרִין וְשָֽׁמְעִית רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה בַּר שַׁמַּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יִצְחָק בֶּן לָֽעְזָר אִם הָיוּ שְׁתֵּי פִּיפָּיְירוֹת מוּתָּר. אָמַר רִבִּי חִינְנָא וְתַנֵּי וּפַלִּיג אִם הָיָה דַרְכּוֹ לִפְסֹעַ אָסוּר. וְתַנֵּי כֵן רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָֽעְזָר אוֹמֵר אִם הָיָה דַרְכּוֹ לִפְסֹעַ בֵּין פִּיפּוֹר לְפִיפּוֹר כְּפִיפּוֹר אֶחָד הוּא. HALAKHAH: Ḥizqiah said, the Mishnah speaks about distances from three to four hand-breadths43In all respects, a distance of up to three hand-breadths is neglected, cf. Mishnah 4:4, Eruvin 1:9, Sukkah 1:9. Hence, sowing within three hand-breadths of a vine certainly sanctifies. If the distance is more than three but less than four, one tells the farmer to complete the four hand-breadths. More than four, while still forbidden, does not sanctify and even if the vine leaves grow they do not interfere as long as the distance is more than three hand-breadths.. Less than three is close up, up to four one has to complete, four is easy for it. How far44How much does one have to separate from the place shaded by the vine leaves that it should not be forbidden to sow there? R. Jacob bar Idi applies the rules of a trellis to the vine trained over a lattice. It is difficult to find a reason for the second opinion given in the name of R. Simeon ben Laqish and probably difficult to find a papyrus mat wide enough that away from the vine there should still be six unoccupied cubits. {It seems, therefore, that R. Simeon ben Laqish takes פיפיוד as name of the plant; cf. Note 38.}? Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, up to four cubits. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, up to six cubits. Rebbi Mana said: I went to Caesarea and heard Rebbi Hoshiah bar Shammai in the name of Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar: If there were two papyri, it is permitted45If two papyrus mats (or ropes, or plants) are laid out parallel over poles and a vine is trained over one of them, the other one is not affected. The opposing opinion states that if the vintner in the ordinary care of the vineyard usually steps from under one mat to under the other, they are considered as one and subject to the 4 cubits/6 cubits rule.. Rebbi Ḥinena said, a statement disagrees: If he usually oversteps, it is forbidden. It was stated thus: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, if he usually oversteps between lattices, it is treated as a single lattice.
מַה בֵּין אִילַן סְרָק מַה בֵּין אִילַן מַאֲכָל. אָדָם מְבַטֵּל אִילַן סְרָק עַל גַּבֵּי גַפְנוֹ וְאֵין אָדָם מְבַטֵּל אִילַן מַאֲכָל עַל גַּבֵּי גַפְנוֹ. What is the difference between a futile and a fruit tree? A person will disregard a futile tree relative to his vine but nobody will disregard a fruit tree relative to his vine46The “futile” tree will not be considered as more than the support of the vine and will not receive attention for its own sake..
תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן כָּל־חֲמָתוֹת צְרוּרוֹת טְהוֹרוֹת חוּץ מִשֶּׁל עֲרָבִייִם. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר צְרוּר הַשָּׁעָה טְהוֹרוֹת צְרוּר עוֹלָם טְמֵאוֹת. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר כָּל־חֲמָתוֹת צְרוּרוֹת טְהוֹרוֹת. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַּנֵּי מָחְלַף. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יָסָא כְּמַתְנִיתִין. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן סֵימָנָא דְּכֵלִים כִּלְאַיִם דִּלֹ כֵן מַה בֵּין צְרוּר עוֹלָם מַה בֵּין צְרוּר שָׁעָה. דְּבֵי רִבִּי יַנַּאי אָֽמְרֵי צְרוּר עוֹלָם צָרִיךְ חִיתּוּךְ צְרוּר שָׁעָה אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ חִיתּוּךְ. There47Mishnah Kelim 26:4. The only things that may be impure are living humans, dead humans and animals, vessels and garments, food and drink, and houses. Tractate Kelim deals with the impurity of vessels and textiles. In that tractate, “pure” means that the vessel in question cannot possibly become impure; “impure” means that it may become impure if exposed to impurity.
If a vessel is used as a container, it can become impure as long as it can be used as container. If an impure vessel springs a leak large enough to make it unusable for its primary purpose, it becomes pure. Animal hides used as containers for water or wine are obtained by skinning slaughtered lambs or sheep. The skin then is open at the neck, the tail, and the four feet. If the feet and tail end are sown tight, there is no doubt that a permanent container was formed which may become impure. If the feet are only tied with rope, they also can become untied; the vessel so created is temporary and cannot become impure. The anonymous Tanna states that Arabs never sow their skins; they have developed a technique to tie the skins with rope to create permanent vessels. R. Meïr extends the rule to all skins whose knots are not supposed to be opened. R. Yose notes that any knot can be untied without damaging the skin; hence, no knot is permanent., we have stated: “All tied-up water skins are pure except those of Arabs. Rebbi Meïr says, temporarily tied ones are pure, permanently tied ones are impure. Rebbi Yose says, all tied ones are pure.” Some Tannaïm state it inverted48They switch the statements attached to the names of R. Meïr and R. Yose. This invites comparison with the Mishnah here.. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yasa: Like our Mishnah. Rebbi Yudan said, the indicator of Kelim is Kilaim49In Kilaim, a “futile” tree is turned into a prop for the vine and loses its character of tree by the vintner’s intention as stated in the preceding paragraph; so likewise the knots with which the skin is tied are temporary or permanent according to the intention of the owner. If we do not change the names in Kelim, the arguments of R. Meïr become consistent; the Mishnah Kelim should not be changed., for if it were not so, what would be the difference between permanent and temporary tie? In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said: A permanent tie must be cut, a temporary tie does not have to be cut50The House of Yannai disagree with R. Yasa: The difference between temporary and permanent knots is not one of intent but of fact. A temporary knot is one that may be untied by hand, even if it is intended to be permanent. A permanent knot is one that cannot be untied with one’s fingers; it is so tight that it can be removed only by cutting the rope. In that case, a tool was needed to create the openings; this action is as if one used a drill to make a hole in a pot, which destroys the vessel and makes it pure. As a consequence, the permanently tied skin is a vessel and can become impure; there are parallel arguments in Kelim and Kilaim..