Yerushalmi Kilayim 2:5 ירושלמי כלאים ב׳:ה׳

MISHNAH: A vertex of wheat¹⁰¹See Chapter 1, Note 202. “vertex” is the interpretation of Maimonides, who translates תורי זהב (Cant. 1:11) not by “golden chains” but “golden triangular earrings,” and ראש תור by vertex of a triangle.” R. Simson and R. Isaac Simponti explain that ראש תור really is a Hebrew/Aramaic hybrid and means “ox head”, “trapezoid” as schematical approximation to the shape of an ox head. In the technical sense, ראש תור is applied to any trapezoidal or pentagonal field in which the furrows are not parallel, in particular if the last furrow in a field is not parallel to the other furrows and certainly not to the furrows in the adjacent field. The two explanations are probably identical; usually ראש תור is created if the outermost furrow of a field is not straight but approximately forms the legs of an obtuse triangle, with its vertex touching the other field. (In Targum Yerushalmi to Ex. 39:10, a direction is called טריגון τρίγωνον “triangle,” meaning an arrowhead pointing in a direction. The identification of directions with triangular features is traditional.) coming close¹⁰²On the basis of both the usage of the Babli and Modern Hebrew, it would seem that one has to translate נכנס by: “enters into.” This cannot be the meaning of the expression here because, at the end of the first paragraph of the Halakhah, a furrow entering into another field is characterized by מובלעת “absorbed into.” Hence, נכנס must mean: “coming closer than permitted by the separation rules but not actually entering the row of growing barley.” to a field of barley is permitted since it visibly is the end of its field. If someone’s field was sown with wheat and that of his neighbor with another kind, he may have of that kind adjacent to it¹⁰³He may sow in his own field of the kind his neighbor grows and not separate it from his neighbor’s crop by the distance required by the Mishnaiot of this Chapter but only by a minimal strip that would designate the border between two fields of separate owners.. If both his and his neighbor’s fields were growing wheat, it is permitted that he have one row of flax adjacent to his, but no other kind¹⁰⁴Instead of having an empty strip as boundary marker, he may plant one row of flax to indicate the border. Since one row is much too little to serve as commercial crop, nobody will think that he is raising kilaim; everybody will know that this is a boundary marker.. Rebbi Simeon says, either flax or any other kind¹⁰⁵Probably, this applies only to kinds routinely sown on fields, not garden beds, since for the latter one row may yield worthwhile produce.. Rebbi Yose says, even in the middle of his field he may test a row for flax¹⁰⁶While the grain is growing, he may test in a short row whether flax will grow there. Since everybody knows that such a small quantity can only be a test, not production for use, it never will look like kilaim..

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Ḥizqiah: A vertex from a dry spot is permitted! Rebbi Joḥanan said, they stated only: “A vertex of wheat¹⁰⁷Meaning the case of a well defined field, not an irregularly shaped plot resulting from sowing near a dry spot. (This paragraph may be used to support the interpretation by R. Simson and R. Isaac Simponti of ראש תור).;” hence, a vertex that comes from a dry spot is forbidden.

Ḥizqiah said, if somebody has slightly more than a bet rova‘, then in that excess he may sow anything he likes¹⁰⁸Assuming one has a small strip along which the kinds can be sown in linear order, each kind being separated from the other. The discussion here follows the previous disagreement between Ḥizqiah and R. Joḥanan.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he may sow in it only one kind. Rebbi Zeïra said, Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that if he had a bet rova‘ and a half, he may sow half a bet rova‘ from either side and the last half bet rova‘ is valid for both sides¹⁰⁹The middle half is enough of a separation; one does need a full bet rova‘ of separation only for a standard field.. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “¹¹⁰. A similar text is found in Tosephta Kilaim 2:1. If he had fields, one sown with wheat and the other sown with barley, he may bring straw¹¹¹All commentators replace תבן “straw” by תלם “a furrow.” But that substitution is not supported by any manuscript. It is induced by misreading of the Tosephta, where one reads: “He ploughs and brings wheat into the barley field, or barley into the wheat field; this is permitted since the wheat looks like part of the wheat field, the barley like part of the barley field.” Similarly, the statements of R. Eliezer ben Jacob are close to the quote here but not identical. “Ploughing” here certainly means ploughing at least two furrows; so the substitution is not supported. in between and sow one side¹¹²Of the straw-covered middle strip. One certainly cannot permit sowing the two slopes of one and the same furrow with two different kinds; that would constitute kilaim according to all definitions. with wheat and the other with barley because the wheat looks like the end of the wheat field, and the barley like the end of the barley field.” What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with that? He explains it¹¹³The baraita and the corresponding Tosephta follow R. Eliezer ben Jacob; he follows the Sages of the Mishnah. following Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob, for Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob said¹¹⁴Tosephta Kilaim 2:2–3, language close to the quote here.: “Even if wheat after wheat comes close to barley¹¹⁵If the second field is not triangular in shape but trapezoidal (or, maybe, even rectangular) there still is no kilaim as long as the visual impression of the two fields is one of separation., barley after barley comes close to wheat, it is permitted.” For wheat after wheat only comes close to barley (wheat), barley after barley comes close to (barley) [wheat]¹¹⁶This now is the explanation of the interpretation of R. Joḥanan. The words in parentheses are in the text and do not make sense, even though they appear in both manuscripts. The word in brackets is inserted as conjecture. The main point is the difference in meaning between “coming close to” and “being absorbed in.” The way Ḥizqiah lets one sow a narrow strip would be classified as one kind being absorbed in the other, at least if the excess area forms a thin strip all around the bet rova‘ square., but if only one wheat stalk is absorbed into the barley, or one stalk of barley is absorbed into the wheat, then that is forbidden.

What are we dealing with¹¹⁷This refers to the last sentence in the Mishnah, the statement of Rebbi Yose. If somebody plants with the intention of not harvesting, but only to test the soil, why should the rabbis disagree (on condition that the test plot be clearly delineated)? The answer is that the rabbis are afraid that the neighbors either will suspect the farmer of sowing kilaim, or they might conclude from his action that one may sow flax in a grain field even as a commercial crop.? If he wants only to test, even in the middle of his field it should be permitted. If he does not intend only to test, why just linseed, and not any other kinds? We deal with the case he wants to test. Rebbi Yose does not worry about bad appearances¹¹⁸Nevertheless, he will never allow testing for another kind of food crop in a field growing food, only an industrial crop.; the rabbis worry about bad appearances.

Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, it is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, nobody can sanctify property that is not his own¹¹⁹R. Simeon’s (and R. Yose’s) statement is in Mishnah 7:4: “Somebody who draws his vine over another person’s grain, sanctifies the latter and has to pay for it. R. Simeon and R. Yose say, nobody can sanctify property that is not his own.” Similarly, any action of a farmer in his field cannot implicate his neighbor in a sin. Hence, the Mishnah itself must be R. Simeon’s: if no crop of the active farmer A has any influence on that of the passive farmer B, then farmer A’s crop itself cannot be forbidden. R. Simeon’s statement is an explanation of the Mishnah, not a disagreement. But the anonymous rabbis of 7:4 will not agree.. Rav said, nobody can jail property that is not his own¹²⁰I. e., make it forbidden to be used. Here and in the following, “to jail” means to have it enclosed from all sides by other produce.. Rebbi Jonah said, Rav comes out like Rebbi Simeon; just as Rebbi Simeon said, nobody can sanctify property that is not his own; so Rav said, nobody can jail property that is not his own. But it cannot be explained following the Sages.