משנה: הַמְסַכֵֵּךְ אֶת גַּפְנוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי תְבוּאָתוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה קִידֵּשׁ וְחַייָב בְּאַחֵרָיוּתוֹ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמְרִים אֵין אָדָם מַקְדִּשׁ דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁזָּרַע אֶת כַּרְמוֹ בַשְּׁבִיעִית וּבָא מַעֲשֶׂה לִפְנֵי רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה וְאָמַר אֵין אָדָם מַקְדִּישׁ דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ. MISHNAH: If somebody draws his vine over somebody else’s grain it sanctifies and he is responsible for its alienation40The neighbor’s grain has to be burned but the neighbor has a claim enforceable in court against the offender. This position of the anonymous Tanna is accepted as practice in Babli Menaḥot 15b.. Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon say, nobody can sanctify anything that is not his.
Rebbi Yose said, it happened that someone sowed in his vineyard in the Sabbatical year41While the farmer remains the owner of the land in the Sabbatical year, the yield of that year is common property of all people. That means that while the vines remain private property (except for the grapes hanging on them), the grain never was the private property of the person sowing it.. When this came before Rebbi Aqiba, he said nobody can sanctify anything that is not his.
הלכה: כְּתִיב לֹא תִזְרַע כַּרְמְךָ כִּלְאַיִם אֵין לִי אֶלָּא כַּרְמְךָ כֶּרֶם אַחֵר מְנַיִין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר כִּלְאַיִם לֹא כֶרֶם וְלֹא כִלְאַיִם. אָמַר רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא. דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר אָמַר אֵין לְגוֹי קִינְייָן בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְפוֹטְרוֹ מִן הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא תִּיפְתָּר בְּגוֹי שֶׁזָּרַע כַּרְמוֹ כִלְאַיִם וּלְקָחוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל. HALAKHAH: It is written (Deut. 22:9): “Do not sow kilaim in your vineyard.” This refers to your own vineyard. From where about another person’s vineyard? The verse says, kilaim, no vineyard and no kilaim.43The argument is slightly more clear in the version of Sifry Deut. 230 on the verse: “Do not sow kilaim in your vineyard, lest the fulness of the seed you are sowing be sanctified together with the yield of the vineyard.” The Sifry reads: “I understand not only a fruit-bearing vineyard, from where a vineyard that is not fruit-bearing? The verse says ‘the vineyard’, any vineyard. I understand not only your own vineyard, from where other persons’ vineyard? The verse says ‘do not sow kilaim’, in any way.” R. S. Adani argues that in contrast to Lev. 19:19, where the direct object precedes the predicate, in Deut.22:9 the predicate precedes the direct object and this is always taken as indicating that the prohibition stated at the beginning of the verse covers all situations the verse refers to. Hence, the operative word is not כרמך “your vineyard” but the last word of the sentence, הכרם “any vineyard.” Rebbi Eleazar said, this is Rebbi Meïr’s, for Rebbi Meïr said that a Gentile cannot acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithes44Since the Mishnah makes no difference whether the neighbor is Jewish or Gentile, its author must hold that the laws of the Land are not abrogated by Gentile ownership.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is the opinion of everybody, explain it by a Gentile who sowed his vineyard kilaim and a Jew bought it from him45Even in the scenario envisaged by R. Eleazar, one cannot infer anything since the Gentile is not required to follow the obligations which in Jewish opinion are a lien on the Land. They are only activated in case a Jew buys the real estate from the Gentile; then the neighbor is a Jew and nobody holds that the obligations are not in force..
רִבִּי יוֹנָה וְרִבִּי יוֹסָה תְּרֵיהוֹן אָֽמְרִין דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא. הַנֶּעֲבָד אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי בֵּין שֶׁלּוֹ בֵּין שֶׁל אֲחֵרִים אָסוּר. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי שֶׁלּוֹ אָסוּר שֶׁל אֲחֵרִים מוּתָּר. הֲווֹן בָּעֵיי מֵימַר מָאן דְּאָמַר בֵּין שֶׁלּוֹ בֵּין שֶׁל אֲחֵרִים אָסוּר רִבִּי מֵאִיר וְרִבִּי יוּדָה. מָאן דְּאָמַר שֶׁלּוֹ אָסוּר וְשֶׁל אֲחֵרִים מוּתָּר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. רִבִּי יוֹסָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָא דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא. כַּמָּה דְתֵימַר תַּמָּן דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ רוּחַ חַיִים אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ נֶאֱסָר לְהִדִּיוֹט נֶאֱסָר לְגָבוֹהַּ וְדִכְווָתָהּ דְּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלָּךְ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ נֶאֱסָר לְהִדִּיוֹט נֶאֱסָר לְגָבוֹהַּ. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose, both of them say that it is Rebbi Meïr’s46The anonymous Tanna of the Mishnah cannot be either R. Yose or R. Simeon; anonymous statements of the Mishnah are attributed to R. Meïr unless an argument can be given to the contrary.. [An animal] which was worshipped: Some Tannaïm state that it is forbidden47An animal used for idolatrous practices is unfit as a sacrifice (Mishnah Temurah 6:1). The Mishnah states that such an animal is forbidden as a sacrifice but its meat may be eaten by private persons since usufruct of living things cannot become forbidden. whether it is his own or somebody else’s; some Tannaïm state that his own is forbidden, somebody else’s is permitted. They wanted to say, the opinion that it is forbidden whether it is his own or somebody else’s is Rebbi Meïr’s and Rebbi Jehudah’s; the opinion that his own is forbidden, somebody else’s is permitted, is Rebbi Yose’s and Rebbi Simeon’s. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi La: It is everybody’s opinion. Just as you say there that a living thing is forbidden for Heaven even though it is permitted for the private person, so anything that is not yours may be forbidden for Heaven even though it is permitted for the private person48Since R. Yose and R. Simeon do not disagree with Mishnah Temurah 6:1 that an animal used for idolatrous purposes (or for sodomy) is forbidden as sacrifice under all circumstances. The argument about sacrifices is irrelevant for the rules of kilaim..
רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר קְנָסֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר וַעֲֲבַד עוּבְדָּא דִכְװָתֵיהּ מִן הָדָא. הַמְסַכֵּךְ אֶת גַּפְנוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי תְבוּאָתוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ. וְכִי מַה עָשָׂה מַעֲשֶׂה. אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁהוֹסִיף לְפִי דַּעְתּוֹ הוּא מוֹסִיף. חַד בַּר נַשׁ חֲוֵי סַלְעֵיהּ לְרִבִּי לָֽעְזָר אֲמַר לֵיהּ טָבָא הִיא וִיפָּֽסְלָת. אֲתָא עוּבְדָּא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ וּקְנָסֵיהּ מִן הָדָא. הַמַּרְאֶה דִינָר לְשׁוּלְחָנִי וְנִמְצָא רַע חַייָב לְשַׁלֵּם מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר. וְרִבִּי לָֽעְזָר נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אֲבוּנָא הַמַּחֲזִיק בּוֹ כְּנוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן לֹא אָמַר כֵּן אֶלָּא רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר אָמַר קְנָסֵיהּ דְרַבָּנִין. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר קְנָסָה דְרִבִּי מֵאִיר. כָּךְ אָתָא עוּבְדָּא שָׁאַל רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ לְרִבִּי לָֽעְזָר הַהֵן קְנָסָא דְמָאן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ דְּרַבָּנִין. אֲמַר לֵיהּ פּוּק שְׁלִם. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this is a fine imposed by Rebbi Meïr49The anonymous Tanna does not dispute that in principle nobody can sanctify anything that does not belong to him, parallel to the position of R. Yose in the preceding paragraph. The order to destroy the growth under the vine is purely rabbinical and intended to punish the mischievous vintner. In contrast to the Babli which always accepts R. Meïr’s decrees of fines, the Yerushalmi will accept only a fine imposed by a majority of the Synhedrion.. Did he act on that, “if somebody draws his vine over somebody else’s grain …”? But what did that person do? When it grows, it grows according to his intention50What could be the reason to impose the fine? When a person draws a vine over somebody else’s grain, both the vine and the grain are permitted and legitimate. Since later he does not do anything further, of what could he be guilty? The answer is that the grain will continue to grow and that increase under the vine is a necessary consequence of the earlier action and covered by the responsibility for the prior action. In the language of the Babli, nobody can claim missing intent by stating that he wanted only to cut off his victim’s head, not to kill him. The Babli (Baba Qama 100b) extends the liability to the case when a stone fence between a vineyard and a grain field developed a hole and the owner after being apprised of the problem did nothing to repair it.. One person showed his tetradrachma to Rebbi Eleazar who told him that it was good51In the Babli, Baba Qama 100a, R. Simeon ben Laqish showed the coin to R. Eleazar and told him that he would hold him responsible if he gave the wrong appraisal.. It turned out to be worthless. This case came before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who fined him according to the following: If somebody shows a denar to the money-changer and it turns out to be bad, [the money-changer] has to pay because he takes a fee52A similar statement appears in the Babli (Baba Qama 59b). There, a distinction is made between a professional money-changer and an amateur, no mention of a difference between giving an opinion for a fee or for free. Some authors (Meïri and R. Asher ben Yeḥiel ad loc.) want to read the ruling of the Yerushalmi into the text of the Babli but their arguments are thoroughly refuted by R. Salomo ben Adrat, ad loc.. Does Rebbi Eleazar take a fee? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abuna: One who takes it into his hand has the status of one who takes a fee53It seems that this argument is an echo of the rule that a single judge who is shown to be in error has to pay the money he erroneously took from one party if he actually handled the money himself (Giṭṭin 5:4, fol. 47a). The argument is not accepted.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun does not say so, but Rebbi Eleazar says that this fine is imposed by the rabbis; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish says the fine is imposed by Rebbi Meïr. When the case came before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, he asked Rebbi Eleazar, who imposed this fine? He [Rebbi Eleazar] said, the rabbis. He [Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish] answered him, go and pay54R. Simeon ben Laqish required R. Eleazar to pay not because the law was that he had to pay, but because R. Eleazar thought the law was that he had to pay. It follows that the Yerushalmi rejects the decrees of R. Meïr not supported by a majority of Sages.
In a similar case in the Babli (Baba Qama 99b), R. Ḥiyya paid up not because he had to, but because, in his opinion, a rabbinic authority is held to higher moral standards..
אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן הַכֹּל מוֹדִין בָּעֲנָבִים שֶׁהֵן אֲסוּרוֹת. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר הָאוֹסֵר אֵינוֹ נֶאֱסָר וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר נֶאֱסָר. מַה פְלִיגִין בִּמְסַכֵּךְ אֶת גַּפְנוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי תְבוּאָתוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ. אֲבָל הַמְּסַכֵּךְ אֶת גַּפְנוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי תְבוּאָתוֹ כָּל־עַמָּא מוֹדֵיי שֶׁהָאוֹסֵר נֶאֱסָר. הַמְּסַכֵּךְ גַּפְנוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי תְבוּאָתוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁזָּרַע אֶת כַּרְמוֹ בַשְּׁבִיעִית וּבָא מַעֲשֶׂה לִפְנֵי רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה וְאָמַר אֵין אָדָם מַקְדִּישׁ דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ. הֲרֵי אֵין הַגֶּפֶן שֶׁלּוֹ וְאֵין הַתְּבוּאָה שֶׁלּוֹ וְאִיתְתָבַת. Rebbi Joḥanan said, everybody agrees that the grapes will be forbidden55They belong to the offending party.. Rebbi Eleazar said to him, what makes forbidden is not forbidden and what is not forbidden will be forbidden56If the vine is drawn in a state in which it does not expand any further, only the growth of the grain under it makes the configuration forbidden, as stated earlier. Since the active grain is not forbidden, how can the passive grapes be forbidden?? They disagree if somebody draws his vine over somebody else’s grain. But if somebody draws a neighbor’s vine over his own grain, everybody agrees that what makes forbidden is forbidden57The grain of the guilty party.. If somebody draws a neighbor’s vine over his neighbor’s grain we can understand from the following: “Rebbi Yose said, it happened that someone sowed in his vineyard in the Sabbatical year41While the farmer remains the owner of the land in the Sabbatical year, the yield of that year is common property of all people. That means that while the vines remain private property (except for the grapes hanging on them), the grain never was the private property of the person sowing it.. When this came before Rebbi Aqiba, he said nobody can sanctify anything that is not his.” This was given as answer58The anonymous first Tanna will hold also in the case under discussion that vines and grain have to be burned and the guilty party charged for all expenses and loss; Rebbis Yose and Simeon hold that nothing has happened.!