MISHNAH: Wheat and zěwānîn ., tare, darnel grass.” E. and H. Hareubeni, in a memoir dedicated to זונין ( Tarbiẓ 10, 1939, 172–189), indicate that the same name is also used in many places for Cephalaria Syriaca L .; the common denominator of the two very different plants is that they are weeds and their seeds spoil the flour if they are ground with it. The grains produced by Lolium are light gray; if infected by a fungus they become dark and poisonous. Lolium belongs to the same family as most grains. It is used as fodder for chickens. Cephalaria is a grass from the family of dipsaceas. Its grains are almost black, about the size of a wheat kernel, and are poisonous to humans but eagerly eaten by pigeons. One has to wonder whether the word could also designate grain blight, whose poison is generated by a fungus just as that of Lolium . Maimonides defines זונין as a kind of inedible wheat; this could indicate blight. Arukh explains by Italian niella , “black kernels.” This translation would fit both Cephalaria and grain blight. The Hareubenis report that in the Arabic of Galilee and Syria, the same word שַׁילַם denotes Lolium , Cephalaria , and blight. are not kilaim one with the other. Barley and fox tail “oats.” , spelt and oats, “rye,” following Rashi and Rabbenu Gershom to Babli Pesaḥim 35a . Maimonides: “prairie wheat.” Arukh: espelda (modern Italian spelta ) “spelt.” The Babli Menaḥot 70b defines שיפון by Aramaic דישרא which can be compared either to Syriac/Arabic دوس “ aegilops , barley darnel” (which would parallel זונין for wheat) or to Accadic dišarru “a kind of grain, oats, or rye.” , beans. and Indian peas. (in the opinion of H. L. Fleischer, Phaseolus mungo ), Arukh: cicercula , chick-pea. and grass peas or Lathyrus cicera , Arukh: Italian piso “pea.” and chick peas. and fava beans and green beans are not kilaim one with the other.
HALAKHAH: It is written: ( Lev . 19:19 ) “you should not sow your field kilaim ;” I could think, even two kinds of wheat or two kinds of barley. “You should not breed your animals kilaim ;” I could think, even black on white cattle, or white on black cattle. “And kilaim cloth, שעטנז, should not be worn by you;” I could think, even two kinds of wool or two kinds of linen. It was made explicit about garments, ( Deut . 22:11 ) “do not wear שעטנז, wool and linen together.” Just as for garments where I forbade you two kinds, neither one is of the genus of the other, so kilaim that I forbade you at any place, neither one is of the genus of the other.
“Wheat and zĕwānîn are not kilaim one with the other.” Hence, with barley they would constitute kilaim nor Lolium grow in barley fields since the larger leaves of the barley obstruct the sunlight they need for growth. Hence, the question is theoretical. . “Wheat and zĕwānîn are not kilaim one with the other;” could anybody err about something that is not food and state it as kilaim , the prohibition refers only to crops that are raised by the farmer and excludes weeds. ? Rebbi Abba bar Zavda said, because there are places where they are collected as food for pigeons, not to Lolium . It might apply to blighted wheat. . Rebbi Abba bar Zavda said, this follows Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there: “If somebody lets thorns grow in his vineyard, they become ‘sanctified’, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. But the Sages say, they do not become ‘sanctified’.” Rabbi Abbahu said, the reason of Rebbi Eliezer is that at some places in Arabia one stores them for camels are forbidden, should be of interest here. But since practice does not follow R. Eliezer, a discussion is not necessary.) The statement is quoted in Babli Šabbat 134b , in the name of R. Ḥanina. . Does this imply that the Sages think that there are no places in Arabia where one stores them for the camels? Let them check it out! The Sages say, where one stores them they are forbidden, but at places where one does not store them they are permitted. But Rebbi Abba bar Zavda cannot follow Rebbi Eliezer! There, people do not transport horns from place to place. But here, people do transport zewānîn from place to place are an object of trade and, hence, a cash crop subject to the rules of kilaim . This was still found true by the Hareubenis in the early 1930’s. .
If so can be a cash crop, they should be kilaim with anything that is not their own kind. , should they not be kilaim with wheat? Rebbi Jonah said, they are a kind of wheat but the fruits went astray also belongs to the same family ( gramineae ) as wheat and rye. . As it was stated: ( Lev . 19:29 ) “The Land should not go whoring,” from here that produce may go astray.
Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi asked before Rebbi Jeremiah: Is our Mishnah from Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose? As it was stated 4:6 , 7 , this appears in a different formulation: “Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose says in the name of his father that one may take heave from wine on vinegar but not from vinegar on wine. Even if one gives heave, one gives only in proportion. {That means, one gives enough vinegar that it would equal in value the wine which should have been given.} If somebody gives an amphora of wine as heave and it turns out to be vinegar, when it was known that it was vinegar before he gave the heave, it is not heave. But if it turned into vinegar after it was given, it is heave. In case of doubt it is heave and he should give heave a second time, the words of Rebbi, who says that wine and vinegar are two distinct kinds, but the Sages say, it is one kind.” : “Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose says in the name of his father that one may take heave from wine on vinegar but not from vinegar on wine. If somebody transgressed, his heave is heave. Rebbi says that wine and vinegar are two distinct kinds and one does not give heave nor does one tithe from one on the other.” He was looking at him. He said to him, what are you staring at me? Bring a lash for yourself; there it is for tithing, here it is for kilaim . Rebbi Jonah said, he should not have stared at him since the earlier rabbis wanted to understand this matter and understood that there it refers to tithing but here to kilaim .
Rebbi Yosa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: All of these form pairs. Has that been said for the entire Chapter, or only for this Halakhah? From what Rav said, that the five vegetables with which one may satisfy one’s obligation at Passover time can all be sown in one vegetable bed2:5 ; cf. the author’s The Scholar’s Haggadah , pp. 332–333. The parallel discussion to the one given here is in Babli Pesaḥim 39a , also in the name of Rav. The statement of Rav was understood to mean that the five kinds may be sown together . , and one says that the statement of Rav disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan, it follows that it has been said for the entire Chapter. Rav Abba in the name of Rav: All have been stated in pairs. The reasoning of Rav is inverted; there he says that they all constitute one kind, and here, he says so? No, Rav did not say that they all constitute one kind, but rather that they all are kinds of vegetables that may be sown in one vegetable bed.
Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, they found written in the notebook of Rebbi Hillel ben Rebbi Vales; Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, they found written on the wall of Rebbi Hillel ben Rebbi Vales: Beans, πίσον, chick peas, mlwt’ . Arukh reads מיליתא. I. Löw proves that all proposed identifications are impossible ( Flora der Juden 2, p. 437.) , krpwnh , climbing beans “bean”. .
So is the Mishnah: Fava beans and string beans. Rebbi Jonah said, why is it called שעוּעית? Because if makes the heart happy and the intestines going.
MISHNAH: Green melon“cucumber, cucumis sativus L .” This is Maimonides’s definition, in Yemenite mss., for all three occurrences of the word in Mishnah Zeraïm . However, in Mishnah Uqeẓin 2:1 and apparently in the Zera‘im ms. before Alḥarizi, he defines it as Arabic فُقُوس fuqūs , in classical Arabic “green melon” (possibly water melon?). In modern Hebrew, קישות means “zucchini.” and sweet melon. nat . XIX (23)] defines melopepon as “golden melon, cucumis melo L .” The Yerushalmi Targum to Num . 11:5 translates Hebrew אבטיח as מלפפון (in contrast to modern Hebrew where אבטיח means “water melon.”) Maimonides translates מלפפון as Arabic כ̇יאר خِيَار ḵiyār “cucumber.” This is the meaning of the word in Modern Hebrew, vocalized מְלָֽפְפוֹן. are not kilaim one with the other. Rebbi Jehudah says, they are kilaim . Lettuce and garden lettuce, endives and field endives, leeks and field leeks, coriander and field coriander, mustard and Egyptian mustard, Egyptian pumpkin and ash-gourd, which in Moroccan means “watermelon”. He defines ash-gourd as a naturally bitter pumpkin which becomes edible only when roasted for some time in hot ashes (רמץ). In the Babli, Nedarim 51a , Samuel defines the fruit as “Caucasian gourd.” , Egyptian beans “large flat greenish beans,” the main ingredient of falafel . חרוב means “carob, carob tree,” but here it means elongated black beans that imitate the looks and shape of carob. and carob beans are not kilaim one with the other.
HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yudan bar Menasheh said: The opinion of the Sages is that one takes a small piece from the pericarp of a green melon and plants it and it grows to a water melon. One takes a small piece from the pericarp of a water melon and plants it and it grows to a sweet melon. Rebbi Jehudah says, it in itself is kilaim . One takes a small piece from the pericarp of a water melon and a small piece from the pericarp of an apple and puts them into one cavity where they unite and become kilaim . Therefore it is called “apple melon” in the Greek language.
What does Rebbi Jehudah say about green melon and water melon? Let us hear from the following 1:1 : “Green melon and squash, water melon and melopepon , are not kilaim one with the other, and one may tithe from one on the other; these are the words of R. Meïr. R. Jehudah and R. Simeon say, they are kilaim one with the other, and one may not tithe from one on the other.” : “Green melon, water melon, and sweet melon are not kilaim [if combined] one with the other; Rebbi Jehudah says, they are kilaim .” It has been said that green melon and water melon are not kilaim one with the other, and water melon and sweet melon are not kilaim one with the other; Rebbi Jehudah says they are kilaim . Green melon and water melon are questionable only compares pairs. Hence, it is questionable whether the baraita teaches anything new. We know from the Mishnah about the comparison of green melon and sweet melon, also from the Tosephta about water melon and sweet melon (cf. Notes 39, 48). Since Rebbi Jehudah is only quoted as reacting to the statements of the first teacher, nothing can be inferred about his opinion if the reference to sweet melon is omitted. In any case, the argument teaches that the absence of kilaim is not a transitive notion: If A is not kilaim with B, and B not with C, it does not follow that A is not kilaim with C. .
“Lettuce and garden lettuce.” Rebbi Ḥananiah said, roof lettuce. Simeon, the son of Rebbi Avi, said, Antiochian (lettuce, reads אינטובין, ἔντυβον “endives.” .) Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, sweet yase is unconvincing. The identifications in Kilaim and Pesaḥim 5:2 refer to different plants. . Endives may be eaten raw, field endives are ‘ ulthin . Leeks. Fields leeks are κεφαλωτόν), found also in Syriac and Arabic. .
“Egyptian gourd.” Our Mishnah does not follow Rebbi Neḥemiah. In the name of Rebbi Neḥemiah with ash-gourd.” In that Tosephta, the identification of Aramean with Egyptian gourds is missing. The Yerushalmi text is quoted in Babli Nedarim 51a . See also below, Mishnah 5 . : Aramean gourd is Egyptian gourd; it is kilaim with Greek gourd, kilaim with ash-gourd.
“Ash gourd.” Rebbi Ḥinenah said, it is a kind of bitter gourd and they sweeten it in hot ashes.
“And carob beans.” Rebbi Jonah said, they are a kind of Egyptian - Persian beans and their pods look like carob.
MISHNAH: Turnips and naphew. In most Mishnah manuscripts, the word is נפוץ with emphatic ṣ . [Maimonides defines as radish ( raphanus ) of the Holy Land.] , cabbage and cauliflower, Arabic قَرْنَبِيط qarnabīṭ . [Jellinek wants toderive the Hebrew word from Arabic תַּרִבַּה, name of a plant, from תרב “to be dusty”. This might be combined with תַּאר “fat”, as a fat plant whose surface looks as if dusty.] , beets, modern Hebrew סֶלֶק (from Babylonian Aramaic, Babli Berakhot 35b .) and orach. , are not kilaim one with the other. Rebbi Aqiba added that garlic and dwarf garlic, onion and dwarf onion, lupine and wild lupine L . The Gaonic commentary to the Mishnah published by S. Asaph (תשובות הגאונים, מקיצי נרדמים ירושלים ת̇ש̇ב̇) explains the word as Arabic قُرُّاص qurrāṣ “stinging nettle, urtica .” are not kilaim one with the other.
HALAKHAH: “Turnips and naphew, cabbage and cauliflower,” thin cabbage. “Beets and orach,” orach of liquids. In ms. Rome: חמועיין, an otherwise undocumented form. . “Rebbi Aqibah added garlic and dwarf garlic,” little garlic. “Onion and dwarf onion,” little “radish.” “Lupine and wild lupine,” pdmw‘h , are not kilaim one with the other
MISHNAH: Among trees, pears and golden apples, “a kind of quince also known as κυδώνιον μῆλον.” Maimonides defines קרוסטמלין as “pears” and אגסין by an Arabic word بُرقوق having many meanings depending on local dialects (including apricots and prunes.) R. Y. Qafeḥ notes that in Yemen, the standard Arabic word for pear means apricot and that for apricot pear. , quince and sorbs “hawthorn”. Quince, sorb tree, and hawthorn all belong to the same botanical family. are not kilaim one with the other. Apple and ḥizrar “fork apples” [possibly apple trees with forked support (espaliers)? (E. G.)] , peaches, “Persian plum.” and almonds, jujubes. The Greek form exists also as ζίζυφος; in I. Löw’s opinion, the word is originally Semitic. (In modern Hebrew, the word means “plum.”) and lotus fruit, even though they resemble one another, they are kilaim one with the other.
HALAKHAH: “Quince.” Rebbi Jonah said, quince. . Why are they called “prepared”, because there is no tree only producing for the pot except that kind.
Salman the Levite, the brother of Zavdi the Levite, in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: All statements are pair by pair. Rav said, all are one kind. This statement can draw support from the fact that the names of all trees mentioned are connected by ו. . A baraitha disagrees with Rav, for we have stated: also the baka-bush. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun objected, did we not also state oregano?
“ They used to graft quince onto pears in the markets of Sepphoris. A student saw them and said to them, you are forbidden [to do so.] They went and cut them down. Then they went and asked at Jabneh. They said to them, the one who hit you was from the students of the House of Shammai.” It says only, quince on a pear tree. Hence, not a pear tree on a ḥizrar .
“ איכה ישבה חבצלת השרון, the place is called “the hot springs of Ariaḥ.” In the region of Ariaḥ they grafted apple on ḥizrar . A student came and told them, this is forbidden to you. They went, cut them down, and came to ask at Jabneh. They said to them, that student said correctly are declared kilaim in the Mishnah. .” He on an apple tree. Does it follow that grafting ḥizrar on a pear tree would be permitted? In that case, this Tosephta would contradict the conclusions we had drawn from the preceding Tosephta. said only, apple on ḥizrar . Hence, not about ḥizrar on pear? What the occasions were, they were.
It was stated: If a Gentile grafted walnut on a peach stump, a Jew, even though he is not permitted to do this, may take a shoot and go and plant it at another location. What results from them? Persian qdryh , s. v. שזף) reads קריא and explains καρύα περσική “Persian nut.” This probably is an arbitrary emendation. . If he crosses beet and purslain. For the identification of the plant from dialectal Arabic, see H. L. Fleischer in Levy’s dictionary, II, p. 445. The explanations of Arukh, Italian asparago “asparagus” or fenicoli “fennel”, do not fit. , a Jew, even though he is not permitted to do this 1:11 . There, the spelling of the second plant is ירבוז, in accordance with the Arabic. , may take a seed and go and plant it at another location. What results from them? Groundsel. In Syrian Arabic, the plant is identified with قطف, “orach.” . Zargun “gold colored.” In Arabic, this is a common name for shoots of the vine. The identification does not fit here at all. It is much better to derive the word from Persian زرچوبه zarčūbeh “turmeric.” (The problem is the pronunciation of ג, גּ, which may represent g , غ gh as in Syrian Judeo-Arabic, or g, ج j as in Yemenite Judeo-Arabic.) and turnips, what results from them? Parsley. This seems to be the better reading by far. . Almonds and terebinths, what results from them? Pistachios. Olive trees and pomegranate trees, what results from them? Zizyphus .
MISHNAH: Radish and naphew, mustard and hoar-hound), defined by Arukh as Italian marrobio , “white hoar-hound.” ; Greek gourd with the Egyptian and ash ones, even though they look similar, are kilaim one with the other.
HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonathan said, there are some where they considered the fruit. “Fruit”, as with the benedictions over vegetables, does not mean the fruit in the botanical sense but the edible part. In the examples here, “fruit” is always the root. , and there are some where they considered the leaves. Turnips and radish, and the Chinese radish sold in New York. , they went in their regard after the fruit. Turnips and naphew, they considered after the leaves. They objected: But radish and naphew have similar fruits and similar leaves, and you say, they are kilaim ? Rebbi Jonah said, in that case, they considered the taste of the produce.
MISHNAH: Wolf and dog, rural dog these are small dogs barking at night in the deserted places surrounding villages; according to Maimonides and a Gaonic source they are hunting dogs. The Halakhah is only intelligible through the definition of Arukh . and fox, goat and deer, mountain goats and sheep, horse and mule, mule and donkey, donkey and wild donkey, even though they look similar, they are kilaim one with the other.
HALAKHAH: Hence, dog and rural dog are not kilaim . This is not following Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr says that they are kilaim . Even though Rebbi Meïr says that the dog is a domesticated animal, he agrees that the rural dog is a wild animal animals is forbidden ( Lev . 3:17 ) but the fat of kasher wild animals is permitted; the blood of kasher wild animals has to be spilled, the blood of kasher domesticated animals may be used for industrial purposes. . Hence, according to Rebbi Meïr, dog and rural dog are kilaim .
Birds are not mentioned in the Mishnah. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is inferred from [the statement of] Bar Dalaiah 55a , R. Simeon ben Laqish is quoted to the effect that in the Mishnah, Rebbi taught that chicken, pheasant, and peacock are kilaim one with the other. The language of the Babli is close to that of the Tosephta. R. Simeon ben Laqish’s position in the Babli is that of R. Yose (the Amora, colleague of R. Jonah) later in the present paragraph. : “Chicken with pheasant, chicken with peacock, even though they look similar, are kilaim one with the other.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said that Rebbi stated for us a complete Mishnah: “The same applies to wild animals and birds 5:7 . The Mishnah notes that the Biblical precept regarding the responsibility of somebody who digs a hole in the public domain and “an ox or a donkey” falls into it ( Ex . 21:33 ) extends to all domesticated animals, to damages assessed on a thief, to the requirement of returning stray animals to their owners, to unload animals in distress, to the prohibition of muzzling an animal used for threshing, to kilaim , and to Sabbath rest. Then the Mishnah adds, “The same applies to wild animals and birds.” Hence, the applicability of all rules of kilaim to birds is spelled out there. .” Rebbi Jonah said, we need that of Rebbi Joḥanan, we state here “wild animal” and explain it there. . We state here “domesticated animal” and explain it there. Birds, we stated there and explain it here one with the other if one is domesticated (chicken) and the other is wild (pheasant) or semi-wild (peacock). . Rebbi Jose said, is that correct? It comes to tell you that birds are forbidden in kilaim !
Rebbi Jeremiah said, Cahana asked R. Simeon ben Laqish. rabba 7(6); it is mentioned in Babli Baba Qama 55a . : What is the rule for someone who mates sea animals? He said to him, it is written about them ( Gen . 1:21 ): “By their kinds.” Rebbi Aḥa did not say so, but Rebbi Aḥa used to say in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, wherever “by their kinds” is written, kilaim applies to it. Rebbi Cahana objected, it is written about the animals of the sea. rabba , one reads “fish.” The verse speaks of all sea creatures, including fish, sea reptiles, and sea mammals. It is difficult to see how copulation could apply to fish. “by their kinds;” kilaim should apply to them! Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, here did Cahana spread his net over Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish and caught him. Rebbi Jonah said, I can explain it, because of one who leads 8:2 states that any two kinds of animals that are kilaim with one another may not be driven or led when harnessed together and may not be used for plowing together. . He brings a string and binds it to the gills of a white fish and a green fish; they rub one another and spawn55a , does not consider the crossing of fish species, only that of marine mammals.) .
MISHNAH: One does not bring a tree on a tree, a vegetable on a vegetable, and neither a tree on a vegetable nor a vegetable on a tree. Rebbi Jehudah permits vegetable on tree.
HALAKHAH: The opinion of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted. There, he says that a man takes a small piece from the pericarp of a water melonand a small piece from the pericarp of an apple, places them into one cavity where they unite and become kilaim , and here he says so? There, because he places them so that they touch one another, unite and become kilaim , but here it is vegetable on tree.
It was stated: From where that one may not graft a tree bearing no edible fruit onto a fruit-bearing tree, or a fruit-bearing tree onto another fruit-bearing tree of a kind that is not his own kind, from where? The verse says ( Lev . 19:19 ): “You must keep My basic Laws, your field you shall not sow kilaim , and kilaim cloth, š ʻ ṭnz , shall not come onto you.” It is concluded ( Sifra Qedošim 4:13–18) that the rules of all three cases are parallel to one another. .” Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Eleazar, in the name of Cahana: This is Rebbi Eleazar’s, “because of the basic Laws I gave.” 8:8 and Babli Sanhedrin 56b that mating two different kinds or grafting two different kinds are activities forbidden in the Law of Nature given to Adam and Noah. He holds that the reference to חוֹק, “basic law,” here is to the Law of Creation, where all living things were created “in their kinds.” In the Tosephta and the Babli, he is alone in his opinion. If this is so, it was forbidden to Adam, the first man were given at Sinai only to the Jewish people. It is not sinful for a Gentile to cross-breed species. ! Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi La, it is the opinion of everybody, because of the basic Laws that I gave to My world(4:14): “Not only your animals with your animals, your animals with the animals of a Gentile, the animals of a Gentile with your animals, Gentile animals with Gentile animals; the verse reads: You must keep my basic Laws.” If Gentiles were exempt, their animals could not be included in the prohibition. R. Eleazar will agree that sowing a field with two different kinds, and wearing clothing made from wool and linen together are prohibitions addressed only to Jews. Only kilaim connected to the story of Creation are obligations of Gentiles. . If it is so, is should be forbidden to graft a black fig tree on a white fig tree. Rebbi Avin said, did you not infer the rules from kilaim of textiles? Just as for kilaim of textiles two kinds, not one from this kind and the other from the other kind, also any other kilaim that I forbade you, not one from this kind and the other from the other kind.
It was stated in the name of Rebbi Eleazar 8:8 . : “The Gentile may sow and wear kilaim , but he may not mate his animals as kilaim or graft his tree kilaim .” Why? Because about these, it is written “by their kinds.” But is it not also written for grasses “by their kinds?” It is not written for the commandment, only at the realization. If this is so, why was Earth cursed. rabba 5(9 ). ? Rebbi Judan bar Shalom said, because it transgressed the orders of the Holy One, praise to Him! ( Gen . 1:11 ) “The earth should produce lawns, grasses producing seed,” but it produced only ( Gen . 1:12 ) “lawns, grasses producing seed by their kinds.. rabba , the difference is about trees, for which Earth was commanded to produce “fruit trees” but bore “trees producing fruit.” In the opinion of R. Yudan bar Shalom, this is disobedience since the entire tree should have been edible, not only the fruit. In the opinion of R. Phineas, Earth produced more than it was commanded, since all trees, even those which today do not grow edible fruit, did produce edible fruit before Adam’s sin. In all cases, only the first words of the verse are quoted, as is customary in both Talmudim. The inference is from the other parts of the verses. ” Rebbi Phineas said, it enjoyed the commandment and added shade trees. In the opinion of Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom, Earth was justly cursed. In the opinion of Rebbi Phineas, why was Earth cursed? Like a man who said: The breastnipples should be cursed that this one suckled from. This follows Rebbi Nathan: Three stood in judgment and four went out cursed, ( Gen . 3:17 ) “Earth is cursed because of you.”
So far it only is written, “do not mate your animals kilaim .” Birds from where? ? Some Tannaim state from ( Lev . 19:19 ): “You must keep My basic Laws,” some state from: “your animals, etc., “animal” includes wildlife and birds. you shall not mate kilaim .” If somebody grafted a tree and mated birds, following him who says “you must keep My basic Laws,” he is guilty of two offenses, your field you shall not sow kilaim , and kilaim cloth, ša’aṭnez , shall not come onto you,” contains three separate prohibitions (mating, sowing, cloth) and one general one. The introductory clause is a general statement which expresses a general prohibition, but since it expresses a general principle (לאו שבכלות) it does not define a prosecutable criminal offense. The count of offenses in our text does not refer to morality or to the view of Heaven unknown to us, but to human jurisdiction. If birds are included because of the legal importance of the story of Creation, the perpetrator committed two crimes simultaneously, transgressing the first two of the prohibitions, and has to be punished accordingly. If birds are included only because of an extensive interpretation of בהמה, the prohibition is not explicitly Biblical and not punishable in court. Hence, for the second position, while two sins were committed, only one of them is subject to sanction by the court. , according to him who says, “your animals you shall not mate kilaim ,” he is guilty only of one offense. When he mated animals and birds, following him who says “you must keep My basic Laws,” he is guilty only of one offense; according to him who says, “your animals you shall not mate kilaim ,” he is guilty of two offenses.
It was stated 1:10 . : “One does not graft olives on the stem 62b . Explanations of the Mayence commentary, “a row of date palms,”and of R. Saul Lieberman, “branch of a date palm.” Literally: “One does not make an olive tree ride on the vehicle of a date palm.” of a date palm because that would be tree on tree.” Rebbi Yudan asked, does that not disagree with Rebbi Levi 128(4 ), in the name of R. Joshua ben Levi. Since R. Levi was a professional preacher, the attribution to him is more convincing. The objection here is not to the sermon but to its underlying hypothesis; one cannot object to sermons. ? “( Ps . 128:3 ) ‘Your wife be like a fruitful vine on the sides of your house, your sons like saplings of olive trees around your table.’ Just as olive trees are not subject to grafting, thus in your sons shall not be found any flaws.” But here it follows that there are flaws in them. There is a difference here, because in the end it will sweeten its fruit. Similar to that, Rebbi Simeon, the son of Rebbi, the final halakhic authority. , used to water his peach tree with cooked wine in order to sweeten its fruit.
MISHNAH: One does not plant vegetables in the stump of a Sycamore tree, one does not graft rue on white cassia, because that would be vegetable on tree. One does not plant a fig tree shoot into rue 2:1, Note 26 . so that the latter should cool it; one does not put a shoot of a vine into a watermelon so that it should supply the shoot with its fluid, because that would be tree on vegetable. One does not put a pumpkin seed into a mallow and R. Isaac Simponti. The Italian malva given by these authors means either mallow or marshmallow. I. Löw identifies the plant as bugloss ( Anchusa officinalis L. ). so that it should protect it, because that would be vegetable on vegetable.
HALAKHAH: Rebbi Zachariah, son-in-law of Rebbi Levy, asked: Apart from that, is it not forbidden because of seeds under a vine. 22:9 . These rules are spelled out in later Chapters of the Tractate. The questioner is of the opinion that planting a shoot of vine in a water melon would be forbidden even if in general trees on vegetables were permitted. ? Rebbi Yose said, explain it if he sets its root down more than three hand-breadths, distant more than six hand-breadths [from the vine], following what was stated 4:11 . : “roots of madder., an industrial plant whose roots were used to produce dye. Hence, the roots of the plant are more important for כלאים than the parts above ground. This is the reading of R. Saul Lieberman; it is offered for ease of translation. However, the few manuscript sources at our disposal all read פֵּיאָה, and one must explain the text with this reading. (As Lieberman correctly notes, the attempt by R. Moses Margalit is incomprehensible.) In Tractates Kilaim and Eruvin , the word פֵּיאָה does not have the meaning “corner” as in Tractate Peah , but means a wire or string strung as a symbolic fence around a field to separate it from the next one, or around a town to make it a “walled” town for the rules of Sabbath. Now, it is stated in Mishnah and Tosephta of Chapter 4 that a solid wall permits one to plant vegetables on one side and vines on the other. This clearly is inadmissible for a peah -fence; one may not plant vines within four cubits of such a symbolic fence. Then the Tosephta states that even in this case the roots that enter from the outside do not cause kilaim if they are at a depth of at least half a cubit. that enter within four cubits of a vineyard are permitted below three hand-breadths.”
MISHNAH: If someone hides turnips and radishes under a vine 2:11, 3:6 ). The Babli ( Eruvin 77b , Sabbath 50b , 113a ) supports the interpretation of R. Simson since it forbids the taking on the Sabbath only if the turnips cannot be pulled by hand. The scenario is difficult to understand since the leaves of harvested plants will soon wilt or rot. and some of the leaves were showing he does not have to worry either because of kilaim ,. Similarly, if the turnips were put into the ground before the start of the Sabbatical year, they do not become Sabbatical produce while in the ground. If they were tithed, they need not be tithed again when taken out. or because of the Sabbatical year, or because of tithes, and they may be removed on the Sabbath. If someone sows wheat and barley together, that is kilaim is 2. Rebbi Jehudah requires uniform rules for all kinds of kilaim and, since Deut . 22:9 states that one may not sow kilaim in one’s vineyard, the minimum is the vine plus kilaim , i. e., three components. {The Babli does not accept the Mishnah as practice but requires at least one seed each from three different species.} . Rebbi Jehudah says, it is not kilaim unless there are two wheat kernels and a barley kernel, or a wheat kernel and two barley kernels, or one each of wheat, barley, and spelt.
HALAKHAH: Ḥizqiah said, they stated only turnips and radishes, nothing else. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no difference whether turnips, radishes, or any other plants. What are we talking about? If because of the rules of vegetables and trees, why do I need vine and radishes, even any other plants? If because he does not want them to take root, why turnips and radishes, even any other species also? From what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, “for example bunches of turnips and bunches of radishes,” it follows that the reason is only because he does not want them to take root permissible for all other fruit trees. .
It was stated 77a , Sabbath 123a . The opinion of R. Eleazar ben Taddeus is not found in Eruvin . : “If unripe figs that one hid in ṭevel , produce from which no heave was taken, may not be consumed on the Sabbath, it may not be moved on the Sabbath. (Cf. Peah , Chapter 1, Note 303 . The Babli reads תבן, “straw”; cf. יפה ענים on Šabbat 123a .) The figs are covered by grain to hasten the ripening process. or a flat pita that one hid in glowing charcoal were partially uncovered they may be taken on the Sabbath, otherwise they may not be taken on the Sabbath or coals fall into the void by gravity, not by intentional moving. . Rebbi Eleazar ben Taddeus is known. said, in either case he pushes in a spear or a knife and lifts them out. 35:33 ) is forbidden. .” The statement of Rebbi Eleazar ben Taddeus turns out following Rebbi Simeon, as we have stated 22a (and 5 other places); a shorter version is in Tosephta Yom Ṭov 2:18 . : “One should not drag a chair, or a bed, or an easy chair because one makes a groove, but Rebbi Simeon permits it.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Huna, Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Illaï: The Sages admit to Rebbi Simeon that a chair whose legs are stuck in mud one is permitted to move. And just as you say that one is permitted to move it, so one is permitted to bring it back. Rebbi Yose said, we also have stated 17:1 : “All vessels may be taken on the Sabbath.”) : “They may be taken on the Sabbath.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, that is from Rebbi Simeon. But we have stated 9:1 that “all aftergrowth of the Sabbatical year is permitted except for that of cabbage,” because the aftergrowth is not usually harvested. This means that aftergrowth may be traded and unlike food harvested in the Sabbatical year, it does not have to be disposed of once there is no more food for the wild animals on the fields. Since any growth of the hidden turnips and radishes can be compared to aftergrowth, there is no way one could possibly worry about the growth in the Sabbatical year, according to R. Simeon. If one cannot worry, then it would be superfluous for R. Simeon to mention that one does not have to worry and he cannot be the author of the Mishnah. Babli Pesaḥim 51b and a few Mishnah sources have R. Simeon stating that “all aftergrowth of the Sabbatical year is forbidden except for that of cabbage.” This reading contradicts the position of the Yerushalrni and will be discussed in Mishnah Ševiït 9:1. : “The Sabbatical year!” Can you say that “the Sabbatical year” follows Rebbi Simeon? Explain “the Sabbatical year!” For Rebbi Simeon permits the aftergrowth of the Sabbatical year, and here he says so? Even though Rebbi Simeon permits aftergrowth of the Sabbatical year, he still holds it subject to the holiness of the Sabbatical year. 25.6 ) but may not be used for industrial purposes, nor may it be left to decay. Holdover turnips and radishes from the previous year may be used for industrial purposes in the Sabbatical year. . Here also, he worries neither about the Sabbatical year nor about the holiness of the Sabbatical year!
One sowed two kinds in a valley, two kinds in a dry spot, or two kinds that he separated by a fence. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is free from sanction, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is guilty. . Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that one who sows on the sea 4:5 . However, it is possible that “sea” here really means “lake” (since Hebrew ים means both sea and lake, as in ים כנרת “Lake Genezareth,”) and one excludes hydroponics from the rules of kilaim . This is the meaning of Tosephta Kilaim 1:14 : “If one sows seeds that grow on swamps, on dunes, he is guilty. But on rocks and on a water canal, he cannot be sanctioned.” , on a stone on a rock” expresses the same thing in two languages. , on a rock, on hard stones cannot be sanctioned. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that one who sows with the intention of erecting a fence cannot be sanctioned. Rebbi Abba from Carthage said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that on the Sabbath it must come to rest1:1 (fol. 2b) that this is punishable only if all three actions have been completed. (This means that if one takes up something in the house, carries it outside and delivers it running to a relay of runners who never stop before the end of the Sabbath, he it is not punishable.) R. Simeon ben Laqish agrees that, even if one had the intention of putting the object down on the Sabbath, a punishable action did not occur as long as the piece had not been put down and come to rest. . Our Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If someone sows wheat and barley together, that is kilaim .” He explains it, if they are put inside a six [hand-breadths] by six [hand-breadths] spot, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is not guilty unless there is a bare spot of six by six inside a grain field or enclosed by a fence.
Does Rebbi Judah say that in this case or not? it is not kilaim ? Rebbi Zeïra said, Rebbi Jehudah follows his own opinion, since Rebbi Jehudah said, in the case of a vegetable field one hand-breadth. Rebbi Yose said, he who wants to question this statement of Rebbi Zeïra might deduce the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah from that of the rabbis. Just as the rabbis say, in the case of the prohibition of bet rova‘ , or one twenty-fourth of a seah , can be sown. Since the bet seah is standardized as 2500 square cubits, the bet rova‘ is 104.16̄ square cubits. A square of area of a bet rova‘ has edge length 10.20621 cubits. It is explained in Mishnah 2:11 that two fields of different kinds of grain have to be separated by a fallow bet rova‘ . However, an infringement of this rule is not necessarily punishable in court by whipping since more narrow criteria apply in criminal cases where the rule of R. Joḥanan holds as explained in the previous paragraph. one needs six-by-six to whip, so Rebbi Judah said in the case of the prohibition of six-by-six that one needs a hand-breadth to whip. But did we not state, Rebbi Judah permits it which parallels the Mishnah states flatly that R. Jehudah permits this kind of sowing outright, not, as assumed here, forbidden but not punishable. ? Then it is difficult: what is the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Since he threw it out from his hand as seed, he is guilty,” the act of sowing is forbidden, not its consequence in the soil. This explains why one had to state earlier that in respect of the laws of Sabbath, even R. Simeon ben Laqish requires that the seed come to rest on the ground. . But did we not state that “Rebbi Jehudah says, it is not kilaim ?” Explain it, until the moment that it comes to rest;” even if he had the intention of sowing kilaim but the wind carried the seeds away, there is no criminal act committed. Hence, in this interpretation intent alone cannot be the determining factor. . But was it not stated that Rebbi Judah permits it? Even if it came to rest, Rebbi Jehudah permits it. Rebbi Illaï said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion, since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Ḥizqiah: A vertex from a dry spot is permitted. Then it also should be thus in the case of two wheat grains and one of barley? That is correct. But did we not state, “unless there are two wheat kernels and one barley kernel, or one wheat kernel and two barley kernels, or one each of wheat, barley, and spelt?” Explain it if there is a grain of wheat on each side, a fence on each side, and the grain of barley caught in the middle. Rebbi Mattaniah said, that is only if there is no dry spot, but if there is a dry spot there, it is permitted.