MISHNAH: In a garden bed that is six by six hand-breadths 84b; Rashi’s explanation is identical with one by an unnamed Gaon, Oẓar Hageonim Šabbat p. 83–86. [In all these discussions, “six hand-breadths” is used, not “one cubit,” since there is an opinion (Tosephta Kelim Baba Meẓia‘ 6:13) that in all that concerns kilaim , a cubit is only five hand-breadths. For the metric equivalents of these measurements, cf. Chapter 4, Note 2 .] one may sow five kinds of seeds, four at its four sides and one in the middle, then the total cultivated area, in square hand-breadths, is f ( a ) = 4 a (6 - 2 a ) + 0.5(6 - 2 a ). A simple computation then shows that the maximum is attained for a = 1, f (1) = 24. R. Obadiah of Bertinoro objects to the use of diamonds in farming; his optimal solution has 4 1.5-by-3 rectangles along the sides and a single plant in the center of the square, total area 18+ε. A different approach by R. Ḥananel, based on the Halakhah here, leads only to a cultivated area of 13, and a more detailed analysis of the Halakhah by R. Simson to 15.04. R. Simson’s explanation is given in the Halakhah; the statement it refers to proves the existence of an arrangement of five different kinds, not the optimal arrangement.] . If it has a wall around it at least one hand-breadth high, one may sow in it thirteen kinds: three on each of the three sides of the wall, and one in the middle. One should not plant a head of turnip in that wall because it fills it. Rebbi Jehudah says, six kinds may be in the middle = √3.25, half the acute vertex angle is given by sin α = 2/3. Hence, the distance between two parallel edges of two parallel rhombs is d = l sin 2α = 1.792 > 1.5, and the arrangement is legitimate. If the inner ערוגה would be filled by 9 1-by-l diamonds, the distance between parallel patches would be only 1; this is too small. Hence, for regular patterns, 6 is the maximum number.) This arrangement increases the number of kinds that can be sown but it does not change the total cultivated area. (According to R. Obadiah of Bertinoro, R. Jehudah refers only to the ערוגה that is surrounded by an earth wall, so that the corners can also be sown. His configuration is of six 2.25-by-1 rectangles separated by strips 1.5 wide, sitting on two parallel edges of the square.) .
HALAKHAH: ( Is. 61:11 ) “Its sown seeds,” the minimum of seeds are two 9:2 as commentary on the Mishnah: “(R. Aqiba said,) from where do we know that one may sow five different kinds in a garden bed that is six-by-six hand-breadths, four at the four edges and one in the middle? For it is said: For as earth will produce its plants, and as a garden will make its seedlings germinate.… It does not say, ‘it will make germinate its seedling’ but ‘its seedlings.’ ” The verse uses a plural for the seedlings in a garden (interpreted as one garden bed); this proves only that it is possible to sow more than one kind. . Rebbi Samuel bar Sisarṭa p. 63 ). said, from two you infer four. Just as for two you start at the beginning of six and reduce continuously, so for four you start at the beginning of six and reduce continuously. It is impossible that there should not be a free space to plant in the middle empty, whose diagonal is 1.5 = a√2. Hence, a = 1.061; the bases of the triangle can only be 3.878 hand-breadths. In that case, the distance of the third vertex of the triangle from its base is equal to half the base on the edge, or 1.939 hand-breadths. The distance from the center is a = 1.061 < 1.5. In order to plant a single seed in the middle, it is therefore necessary to cut off the triangles at distance 1.5 from center and edge, creating four congruent trapezoids. The height of a trapezoid is h =1.5, its base 2 b =3.878. By similar triangles, the length t of its top is given by 2b/b = t/(b-h) or t = 0.878. That makes it possible to plant a single fifth kind in a small space in the middle. The total area planted amounts to four times the area of the trapezoids, 15.044 square hand-breadths, plus the area of the small space in the middle. . Rebbi Jonah said, working space joins working space but a kind does not meet another kind to jail it. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: “Its seed, its seeds, its sown seeds. 61:11 and in a description of grain ( Lev. 11:37 ): “seeds of seedlings that may be sown.” In contrast to modern dictionaries which take זרוע as a word different from זרע, the authors here take it as expansion of זרע “seed.” The root is expanded three times, by taking the plural, adding a possessive suffix, and adding the letter ו. Each change is taken as a plural, hence three plurals are added for a total of six. ” That follows Rebbi Jehudah, since Rebbi Jehudah said six, “seed, its seed, its seeds, its sown seeds.” Rebbi Ḥaggai said, זרעיה has five letters; everywhere I find ו,י I delete them. This was asked of Rav Huna, the scribe of the assembly, and he said, זרועיה is written plene writing refers to the masoretic spelling of the word; one has six letters supporting Rebbi Jehudah. . Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: All inside of six. Cahana in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: All at the outside of six. Then we should state “nine!” Rebbi Tanḥum from Bostra said, that is true. But our Mishnah speaks of a garden bed in the middle of garden beds 86b ). Otherwise, it really is possible to sow 9 kinds, as the Babli puts it ( Šabbat 86a ), in the case of a garden bed planted on land otherwise dry, with no other beds nearby. Rav in the Babli still admits only five kinds even on dry land. .
Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Immi were sitting and asking, did we not state: “If it had a wall around it at least one hand-breadth high, one may sow in it thirteen kinds: three at each of the three sides of the wall, and one in the middle.” Should we not state, ‘six in the middle?’ Explain it if the walls diminish six. If the walls diminish six, is it that about which we stated: “Rebbi Jehudah says, six kinds may be in the middle?” We upheld it, but we do not know whether the colleagues upheld it or Rebbi Immi did; it refers to the beginning. And if it refers to the beginning, it is that about which Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, 18.
May one raze a bet rova‘ and sow in it five different kinds of grain is 10.206 cubits ( Peah, Chapter 2, Note 78 ). The Arabic verb קרח has many disparate meanings. One of them in the first conjugation is: “to dig a well”, another one in the eighth, “to improvise”. As noted in Chapter 2, Note 150 , the derived noun קראח means “plot prepared for sowing”. Since Arabic terms for agriculture are mostly taken from the languages of sedentary people living near Arabia, it might be that הקריח is an unrecognized Hebrew verb meaning “to prepare for agricultural use”. ? If about a six-by-six, for whose infringement one is whipped by Biblical decree, which for separation is only a rabbinical requirement, cannot have more stringent rules. , you say it is permitted, then so much more here where you are not whipped by Biblical decree. May one raze at the corners of a six-by-six to make a continously narrowing patch? If in a case where working space does meet working space, you say that it is permitted, then so much more in this case where working space does not meet working space. That was unnecessary. May one raze at the corners of a bet rova‘ to make a continously narrowing patch? If about a six-by-six, for whose infringement one is whipped by Biblical decree, you say it is permitted, then so much more here where you are not whipped by Biblical decree one proposes to make trapezoids with sides inclined 45°, starting out at a distance of 1.061 from the vertex and narrowing to a distance of 1.5 from the center; see Note 10 , fig. 3–4. In that case, the base is 8.084 cubits, the vertex of the isosceles triangle of angle 45° is again at distance a = 1.061 from the center and the length of the top of the trapezoid is again t = 0.878. Since in the trapezoidal configuration the plots do not touch, there is no question of “jailing”, which is permitted for garden beds and forbidden for larger fields; hence, what is permitted for garden beds in this case is also permitted for a bet rova‘ . (The configuration of Maimonides cannot be carried over to larger fields.) .
Rebbi Nassa asked: Is it not reasonable that, if the top of the surrounding wall is two hand-breadths wide, one is permitted to sow on it two kinds? Rebbi Nassa asked: If he drew a string is that the patches in which different kinds are sown be divided by clear dividing lines and, as a rabbinic requirement, that the kinds be visibly separated, the erection of a symbolic wall satisfies the rabbinic requirement. The question is, how narrow is the minimum domain cordoned off by the פיאה? in the middle, sowed in half of it, how far can he draw it? From what Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Immi said, “explain it if the walls diminish six,” that means that it may be even less, cf. Demai , p. 521. than that. Let us hear from the following 2:9 , with slightly changed language, תלמיות “little furrows,” instead of גוממיות “little holes.” : “In depressions that are one hand-breadth deep one may sow three seeds, one on each side and one in the middle.” That means, down to one hand-breadth. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana, Simeon from Nerash in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: They taught “leaning towards a dry spot” 85a . It is rejected there by Samuel, loc. cit. 85b.) .
Rebbi Zeïra said, they made every single hand-breadth on the border wall a domain for itself. Then there should be 25, six on each side of the border wall and one in the middle! Is that so? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac objected: Did we not state that “in a furrow or a water canal one hand-breadth deep one may sow (two) kinds of seeds, one on each side and one in the middle.” Should one not state five, two on each side and one in the middle? That is impossible; the two sides jail the middle one.
Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked: Does the border wall save vegetables from melons? If the border wall does not save different kinds of grains that are saved by 10.5 cubits, 10.21 cubits square (here rounded upwards to 10.5), and no border wall is ever mentioned in the rules that govern these fields. Squash and melon for whom we require a separation of 12 cubits along the entire length of the field cannot possibly have more lenient rules. , does this not apply a fortiori to melons that are saved only by twelve cubits? Does planting melon save on top of the border wall? If different kinds of grains that are saved by 10.5 cubits are not saved on top of the border wall, does this not apply a fortiori to melons that are saved by eight cubits? Rebbi Judan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah, said, is that a reasoning a fortiori ? It must be as follows: If different kinds of grains that are saved by 12.5 cubits are not saved on top of the border wall, does this not apply a fortiori to melons that are saved only by twelve cubits?
MISHNAH: One does not sow any kind of seed-plants in a garden bed. What one does with a small plot planted only with one kind is not regulated here. ; but one may sow any kind of vegetables in a garden bed. Mustard and smooth peas are counted as seed-plants, large peas are vegetables. A border wall that was one hand-breadth high and shrank is in order because it was in order at the start. In a furrow or a water canal one hand-breadth deep one may sow three kinds of seeds, one on each side and one in the middle.
HALAKHAH: “Any kind of seeds, etc.” Mustard and smooth peas are counted as seed-plants; if one sowed them for use as vegetables he may not put them in a garden bed. Large peas and Egyptian beans sown to produce seeds one may not put in a garden bed. If one sowed them for use as vegetables he may put them in a garden bed. All other garden seeds that are not eaten, even though one sowed to produce seeds, he may put them in a garden bed2:8 : “Mustard, beans, and oats, even if sown for use as vegetables, may be put in a garden bed. Large peas and Egyptian beans sown to produce seeds may be put in a garden bed; if one sowed them for use as vegetables he may not put them in a garden bed. All field or garden vegetables, even though one sowed to produce seeds, he may not put in one garden bed.” R. S. Lieberman prefers to read instead of שיפון “oats” שופין “smooth ones,” referring to beans, parallel to “peas” of the Mishnah. But the manuscripts of the Tosephta are too corrupt here to be of any value. .
“If it shrank it is in order.” Rebbi Immi said, that means for the seeds that were already on it; hence, it is forbidden to sow anew. If one transgressed and sowed, since the earlier ones are permitted, so are the new ones. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: It is acceptable that if the later ones were uprooted, the earlier ones are permitted. If the earlier ones were uprooted, what is the status of the later ones? Let us hear from the following 19:6 . One has to read ארוכות instead of ארובות. One speaks of a bed that has a wooden frame, consisting of two short (head- and foot-) boards and two long ones on the sides. The mattress lies on strings that are strung from one long board to the opposite one. The bed has become impure. It is a utensil, and any utensil can become pure either by immersion in a ritual bath (which is a problem for a large bed) or by becoming unusable. The Mishnah states that if the two long boards are broken we no longer have a bed and the remainder becomes pure, even if the boards are later replaced by new ones. But if the long boards are simply removed and replaced by new ones, the impurity is not removed, even if the replacement boards break, since the old ones could be returned to their place. : “If the two long boards of a bed were removed and one made two new ones in their stead but did not change the holes, if the new boards were broken, it is impure, if the old ones, it is pure, since all goes after the prior status.” That means, if the later ones were uprooted, the earlier ones are permitted. If the earlier ones were uprooted, the later ones are forbidden.
Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Zeïra and Rebbi Immi, both in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, one said one plants near a fence but not near a border wall, and the other said, a border wall which lost height is in order, hence a fence which lost height is invalid. But we do not know who said what. Since Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One plants near a fence but not near a border wall, this means Rebbi Immi is the one who said that a border wall that lost height is in order, hence a fence which lost height is invalid. Rebbi Yose said, we also did make both statements, that a border wall that lost height is in order, hence a fence that lost height is invalid. One plants near a fence, as we have stated ( Mishnah 2:8 ): “One does sow close to a fallow field, a plowed field, a stone wall, a foot path, a fence ten hand-breadths high.” One does not plant near a border wall, as we have stated ( Mishnah 3:2 ): “In a furrow or a water canal that are one hand-breadth deep one may sow three kinds of seeds, one on each side and one in the middle.” If you say that one may sow close to a border wall, he should sow several rows down in the ditch. The colleagues said before Rebbi Samuel bar Abin: Explain it if the top of the border wall was sown. He said to them, if it is so, let him uproot that stem and sow several rows down in the ditch. Is it not better to uproot one stem and sow several rows down in the ditch?
MISHNAH: It is permitted that a vertex of vegetables enter a field of other vegetables, since it is visibly the end of its field. If one’s field was sown with vegetables and he wants to plant in it a row of a different vegetable, Rebbi Ismael says, not unless he has an open furrow from one end of the field to the other. Rebbi Aqiba says, a length of six hand-breadths for a full width. Rebbi Jehudah says, the width must be the width of the sole of a foot 11:10 : “You did irrigate it with your foot like a vegetable garden.” .
HALAKHAH: “A vertex, etc.” Bar Qappara stated: He sows in it only one kind.
What did Rebbi Ismael say about the width? Now if Rebbi Aqiba, who encloses it from three sides, requires a full width, Rebbi Ismael who encloses it by two rows, not so much more, R. Aqiba must be less restrictive than R. Ismael. This is the case since R. Aqiba requires only a separation along six hand-breadths. But then, in order for the argument to make sense, “a full width” must mean the maximum separation mentioned in the Mishnah, i. e., six hand-breadths. Otherwise, R. Ismael could be more restrictive than R. Aqiba even in regard to width. Hence, the explanation of Maimonides of the Mishnah cannot be accepted. ? What does Rebbi Ismael say about a row of vegetables in a grain field? Now if Rebbi Aqiba, who is more lenient here, is restrictive there, Rebbi Ismael, who is more restrictive here, certainly will be restrictive there! No, this is not necessarily so. What does Rebbi Ismael say there about width? As we say there, there is no difference between Rebbi Aqiba and Rebbi Ismael in matters of width 2:13 , reads: “Whether there be a row of melon or a row of any other vegetable in a grain field, a length of 10.5 cubits by a width of six hand-breadths.” .
Samuel said, they taught only one row, hence two are forbidden. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say that there is no difference between one and two rows.
Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is permitted to split four rows in an open field. Rebbi Joḥanan said, only if the two outer rows be treated as garden beds. Rebbi Zeïra said, only if three are within six.
Rebbi Ḥuna said, what is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah 85a ), this is the opinion of R. Zeïra (Zera). It would appear that the author here is not the Galilean Rebbi Huna but the Babylonian Rav Huna, teacher of R. Zeïra. This paragraph can be added to the list of parallels given in the Yerushalmi in the name of a Babylonian and in the Babli in the name of a Galilean. ? ( Deut. 11:10 ) “That you irrigated with your feet as in a vegetable garden.” What is the measure of a foot sole? A hand-breadth.
We have stated the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah here, and we have stated it there. If it had been stated here but not there, we would have said that just as Rebbi Jehudah who is restrictive here is permissive there, the rabbis who are permissive here certainly will be permissive there. Hence, it is necessary to state there. Or if it was stated there but not here, we would have said that just as the rabbis who are restrictive there are permissive here, Rebbi Jehudah who is permissive there certainly will be permissive here. Hence, it is necessary to state both here and there.
MISHNAH: If someone plants two rows of green melons, two rows of pumpkin, two rows of Egyptian beans, this is permitted. 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 side. (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.), 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 ).
HALAKHAH: “If one plants two rows”, etc. Ḥizqiah said, there is disagreement. He who says there 12 [cubits], here also 12 [cubits]. 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 eight.
How long does it have to be to jail? 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 separation, so here also there is no difference between length and separation. That is fine according to the opinion of Ḥizqiah; there eight and here also eight. According to Rebbi Joḥanan, with how much will it jail? If you say with eight, is there an argument a fortiori , 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( x 1 , …, x n ) < B( x 1 , …, x n ), but nothing is known about A( x 1 , …, x n , u) and B( x 1 , …, x n , u ), then the consistency of the logical system requires the assertion A( x 1 , … x n , u) < B( x 1 ,… x n , u) meaning that B( x 1 ,… x n , u) cannot be strictly less severe than A( x 1 , … x n , 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.
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.
Rebbi Yannai said, it is a controversy whether two kinds join together to save but do not join together to prohibit. 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 simultaneously.
“One may plant melon”, etc. It was stated 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 spot. Rebbi Mana asked, if we deal with those that lean towards a dry spot, should we not state “eight,” two on each of the edges?
MISHNAH: If one’s field was sown with onions and he desired to plant there rows of pumpkin, Rebbi Ismael says, he uproots two rows, plants one row, and leaves two rows of onion standing, uproots two rows, plants one row. Rebbi Aqiba says, he uproots two rows, plants two rows, and leaves two rows of onion standing, uproots two rows, plants two rows. But the Sages say, if between one row and the next is less than twelve [cubits], he should not keep the seeds in between.
HALAKHAH: (He who plants his vineyard, etc.). Cahana said, according to the words of Rebbi Ismael sometimes there are 16, sometimes 12, sometimes 8. When he gives all the working space in the interior, 16. Part interior and part exterior, 12. All exterior, 8. Samuel says, it always must be 12. . We have stated thus: “It is determined according to the statements of both of them: Rebbi Ismael says 12, Rebbi Aqiba says 8.” Now, Rebbi Ismael says 12, and the rabbis say 12; in what do they disagree? Closing up! In the opinion of Rebbi Ismael one may not close up, but the rabbis say he may.
MISHNAH: Pumpkin in the middle of vegetables goes by the rules of vegetables on fields, we are back to considering fields, not garden plots. The rule referred to is Mishnah 2:10 which prescribes an empty space of six by six hand-breadths square. , in the middle of grain it needs a bet rova‘. If one’s field was sown with grain and he desired to plant there one row of pumpkin, he must allow six hand-breadths to tend it. 3:13), following the Gaonim, he requires only that grain be removed if the leaves of the pumpkin grow over the entire strip. R. Abraham ben David also adheres to the Gaonic interpretation. R. Simson is silent in the matter.] If it grows, he has to uproot before it. Rebbi Yose said, he allows four cubits to tend it. They said to him, are you making this more restrictive than for a vine? He said to them, we find that this case is more restrictive than that of a vine. For a single vine one allows six hand-breadths to tend it, but for a single pumpkin a bet rova‘. Rebbi Meir says in the name of Rebbi Ismael, if there are three pumpkin plants in a bet seah one should not sow in that bet seah. Rebbi Yose, the son of the Snatcher from Efrat, says in the name of Rebbi Ismael, if there are three pumpkin plants in a bet kor one should not sow in that bet kor = 25'000 square cubits. .
HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said: The words of Rebbi Ismael imply that one allows space for tending even for a single row.
Does one allow space for tending the first plant? Just as you say in regard of a vineyard that one gives space for tending the first plant, so here also one allows space for tending the first plant 2:13. Since it is formulated as an Amoraic argument, that Tosephta was not known to the editors of the Yerushalmi. . May one sow between the holes? Just as you say in regard of a vineyard that one may not sow between the vines, so here also one may not sow between the holes.
Rebbi Jonah asked: If somebody planted five pumpkins and trained them to grow on a fence, does one give it the rules of a trellis?
Does one estimate so for all kinds of pumpkins? Every place at which you made green melon and Egyptian beans equal to Greek gourd, you make Egyptian pumpkin equal to Greek gourd. Here, where you did not make melon and Egyptian beans equal to Greek gourd, you do not make Egyptian pumpkin equal to Greek gourd.
Why did they not object to him: If someone keeps single fresh stalks growing to produce seeds, must he not clear around them a bet rova‘ or fence them in by a fence of ten hand-breadths? For a row one is more lenient. Nevertheless, if the plants raised for seeds form a row, they are under the general rules for rows. This is all according to the anonymous majority opinion in the Mishnah. Hence, for them, the argument of R. Yose is totally irrelevant, since his argument is about single plants! . Since they did not object to him, it follows that Rebbi Yose thinks that row and square are the same. For Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose the Galilean said in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: He who keeps a single fresh stalk growing to produce seeds must clear around it a bet rova‘ or fence it in by a fence of ten hand-breadths, even if it is the same kind. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya objected before Rebbi Zeïra, did we not state 4:5: “If coriander was sown for its seeds, the greens of it are exempt; if it is sown for greens, both greens and seeds must be tithed.” The question is really about the second part of the sentence, not quoted in the text: If it is sown for greens, the seeds also must be tithed. Hence, the seeds cannot be considered a different crop. Why should plants grown for seeds have to be fenced off from the rest of the field? The answer is that they do not have to be fenced off but that the rule of R. Yose ben R. Ḥanina refers only to plants whose seeds are not eaten with the rest of the plant. : “If coriander was sown for its seeds, its greens are exempt?” He answered him, coriander is a special case since both the plant and its seeds are eaten.
Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, come and see the difference between the early and the late statements of Rebbi Ismael! He started out with a bet kor and ended up with a bet seah́ and bet seah in the statement to adapt them to the order of the Mishnah.) !