Yerushalmi Kilayim 6:1 ירושלמי כלאים ו׳:א׳

MISHNAH: What is a trellis¹This is the interpretation of most commentaries, from Hebrew ערש “crib”, Arabic عَرِبش “trellis, crib”. R. Abraham ben David in his commentary to Idiut 2:4 explains that five vines in a row form a vineyard for the House of Hillel only if the vines are growing on a trellis near a fence, not if the fence is used as a trellis. This is the only possible explanation in Idiut, but in his Commentary on this Mishnah, Maimonides explains that vines lean on or upon the (stone) fence. He gives the same interpretation in his Code (Kilaim 8:2) but then has to come to the conclusion (loc.cit. 8:3) that the four cubits to be measured from the fence are on the side pointing away from the vines. R. Abraham ben David protests against this interpretation which “never entered the mind of any commentator.” Maimonides’s interpretation is difficult to accept, the tortured justifications of R. David ben Zimra and R. Joseph Caro in their commentaries on the Code notwithstanding, since the vines according to the Mishnah can be up to three cubits distant from the fence.? If somebody plants a row of five vines along a fence ten hand-breadths high or a ditch ten hand-breadths deep and four wide, one gives it four cubits working space. The House of Shammai say one measures four cubits between the stems of the vines and the field. The House of Hillel say, between fence and field²For them, the trellis (or plantation) is not quite a vineyard; it is irrelevant where in the strip near the fence the vines are planted.. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, anybody who affirms this is in error; if there are four cubits between the stems of the vines and the fence one gives it its working space and he may sow the rest. What is the working space of a vine³A single vine. For R. Ismael, five vines in a row are never a vineyard; they are a collection of single vines; the restrictions of the Mishnah apply only because the trellis is too close to the fence. But as soon as the vines are a full four cubits distant from the fence, the vines are treated as isolated. For R. Aqiba, the working space must have a diameter of six hand-breadths.? Six hand-breadths in every direction; Rabbi Aqiba says three.

HALAKHAH: It is difficult. Is it not forbidden anyhow for the House of Shammai as a vineyard⁴Five vines in a row constitute a vineyard for the House of Shammai, Mishnah 4:5.? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this was taught about a curved trellis⁵According to R. Simson, the trellis is in a straight line but the vines are planted alternatingly on both sides of the trellis; they are not in a straight line. According to R. Isaac Simponti, the trellis is built as arc of circle, to provide wider spacing for the branches of the vines exposed to the sun.. In that case, it would not be forbidden as a vineyard without a fence. Rebbi Jonah inquired⁶The interpretation of this paragraph and the next follows R. Iehiel Michel Halevi Epstein in his notes published as Mēkhal Hammayîm, Wilna 1928. The question is addressed to the House of Hillel in the interpretation of R. Simeon ben Laqish. For them, two parts of the definition of a vineyard are missing; there is only one row and the vines are not planted in a straight line. The Mishnah declares a trellis in front of a fence to have a status similar to a vineyard but it is not clear whether the rules of a vineyard are valid without change. Since in Mishnah 7, the space required to separate two trellises is only half the space required to separate two vineyards, it is clear that the rules of vineyards cannot be applied without change to trellises.
We have to assume that also along the trellis the vines are planted at least four cubits apart. Since the vines are planted in a zig-zag pattern, between two vines in the same row the distance is almost eight cubits. Rebbi Jonah now asks, according to R. Simeon ben Laqish does the forbidden area cover the union of circular disks of radius 4 centered at the vines or is the entire convex hull of that domain (the smallest convex set containing the disks) forbidden? In the first case, between the vines the minimal distance from the trellis is less than 4 cubits; this is “in between”. The answer is that only in the case of vines planted in a straight line can one say that the interior of the parallel figure to the trellis in distance 4 is forbidden; here it seems that not even the entire parallel figure to the zig-zag line connecting the vines is forbidden but only the union of the five circular disks.
The second question then asks whether maybe not even the entire disks are forbidden but only the union of five polygons, each centered at a vine. Let v denote the center of a vine, a the point at distance 4 from v on the perpendicular from v to the fence, a’ the reflection of a in v. On both sides of the line a’va draw parallels in distance 1. They intersect the parallels to the zig-zag line through a and a’ at b,b’; c,c’. The polygon attached to v is then abb’a’c’ca. The forbidden area around a now is 8, not 16π > 50, and even on the zig-zag line there is an interval of almost 2 cubits that might be sown. The answer is negative, with reference to Halakhah 3:7.
FIGURE 6-1 HERE: May one sow in between? Is it in a straight line, that you say it is forbidden to sow in between? May one sow between the vines? As you say in the case of a row of gourds that it is forbidden to sow in between the pits, so here also it is forbidden to sow in between the vines.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Mishnah was taught about a straight trellis. In that case, would it not be forbidden as a vineyard without a fence⁸For the House of Shammai.? Let us say, it was stated because of the House of Hillel⁹In the opinion of R. Joḥanan, the presence of a trellis has no legal consequences for the House of Shammai; else he would have stated that for the House of Hillel a straight row on a trellis, for the House of Shammai even a curved trellis, would form a vineyard.. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, it is reasonable to assume that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees with Rebbi Joḥanan that it was taught about a straight trellis because of the House of Hillel, and Rebbi Joḥanan agrees with Rebbi Simeon [ben Laqish] that it was taught about a curved trellis because of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri, since Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said that anybody who affirms this is in error. If you say it was taught about a straight trellis, what can be in error¹⁰This rhetorical question is difficult to accept, since for R. Joḥanan ben Nuri only one cubit around a vine has to be left empty, but for the House of Shammai four cubits along the trellis are required. The question seems to be that in a normal case, if the trellis is parallel to the fence at a distance of three cubits there is no difference since one may not sow between the trellis and the fence (R. Yose in Mishnah 5:4) and the next cubit away from the fence is forbidden according to both Houses and R. Joḥanan ben Nuri. If the fence is a stone fence belonging in part to a neighbor, three cubits distance is the legal minimum (Mishnah Baba Batra 2:1).? What is the difference between him who says one measures from the roots of the vines and him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence? Rebbi Yose said, explain it if the stems were partially inside four cubits and partially outside of four cubits¹¹The trellis is straight but not parallel to the fence; at one end one cubit from the trellis is more than three cubits from the fence. If one measures from the vines, everything on this side of the fence is forbidden up to a distance of four cubits from the trellis; there is no difference between the House of Shammai and R. Joḥanan ben Nuri. But if one measures from the fence and the last vines are 4-ε cubits from the fence, then the House of Hillel forbid only a strip four cubits wide from the fence and R. Joḥanan ben Nuri will forbid up to 5- ε cubits from the fence.. For him who says one measures from the roots of the vine, all is in order. For him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence, where the string drawn from the fence ends it is forbidden, the rest is permitted. If there were two cubits¹²This is a different situation and refers to the disagreement between the Houses of Shammai and Hillel, but not to R. Joḥanan ben Nuri. Here the trellis is only two cubits from the fence; the fence must be the sole property of the vintner. According to Maimonides (loc.cit.), the House of Shammai will forbid only strips of two cubits each on both sides of the trellis but the House of Hillel will forbid an additional two cubits on the other side of the fence. According to R. Abraham ben David, the explanation of Maimonides defies all logic since a fence separates in all respects. R. Abraham explains that for the House of Shammai, a strip of width 2 is forbidden on each side of the vines. If the vines are d cubits wide, the total width of the forbidden strip is 4+d. But for the House of Hillel, the width is only 4, less than the width required by the House of Shammai., only two cubits are forbidden for him who says one measures from the roots of the vines, but for him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence, another two cubits are forbidden.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri, all three said the same thing. Rebbi Ismael, as we have stated¹³Mishnah Idiut 2:4, of the statements about accepted practices collected when Rabban Gamliel was deposed and R. Eleazar ben Azariah was installed as patriarch. The garden is a small plot, on each side a vine is planted and their branches are trained over a trellis. For a situation comparable to the one here one has to assume that plot and trellis are enclosed by a fence ten hand-breadths high.: “About a small garden surrounded by a trellis, if there is room for the vintner and his basket on each side one may sow there, if not, it may not be sown.” Rebbi Jonah said, the vintner requires one cubit, his basket one cubit on each side. They wanted to say, for him who says one measures from the roots of the vine, all is in order. For him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence, do the stems not diminish the measure of four cubits¹⁴If one measures two cubits from each side of the stem of thickness t the distance of the end of the forbidden domain from the fence will be 4+t > 4 and R. Ismael cannot agree with R. Joḥanan ben Nuri that as soon as the distance is > 4 there are only isolated vines.? Explain it if they were clinging to the wall. But are there not only four and the rules of the trellis start with five? Rebbi Ḥananiah said, explain it that two vines are planted at a corner; if one stretches a rope one sees four intervals¹⁵There are two possible interpretations of this statement. The traditional one is that there is a single vine on each side and an additional one planted at one corner for a total of six. But in that case, there are five intervals; in addition, the comparison between the opinions of R. Jose and R. Ismael would not work! R. Ḥananiah must insist that the rules of trellis do not depend on the number of vines but on the number of spaces between them. In a linear order, for four spaces one needs five vines. But in a circular arrangement, four vines define four intervals. I prefer to read the statement as: “Any two vines form a corner, for a total of four intervals.”. Rebbi Yose, as we have stated¹⁶Mishnah 5:4.: “If there are less than four cubits one should not bring seeds there.” For him who says one measures from the roots of the vine, all is in order. For him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence, does the stem not decrease the measure of four cubits? Explain it if it was clinging to the wall. And similarly Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri here. It is reasonable to assume that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Ismael will agree with Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri, but Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri will not agree with Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Ismael¹⁷R. Joḥanan ben Nuri might not agree that vines not planted in a straight line, even if strung on a trellis, ever need four cubits. But R. Yose and R. Ismael must agree that in the case of the Mishnah, the first four cubits are forbidden. R. Yose has to agree with R. Ismael since he requires four cubits even if the vines do not form a regular pattern, but we have no statement of R. Ismael if the stems of the vines do not form a square or at least a parallelogram.. Rebbi Yose will agree with Rebbi Ismael but Rebbi Ismael will not agree with Rebbi Yose.

Rebbi Jehudah¹⁸This must be Rav Jehudah. The following statement of R. Jacob bar Idi, taken from the end of Chapter 4, restricts the opinion of Rav to vineyards outside the Holy Land. The Babli (Qiddušin 39a) disagrees and holds that kilaim is forbidden only in the Holy Land; elsewhere only sowing grain directly under a vine is forbidden by rabbinic decree since in the Holy Land this would sanctify. in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice outside the Land follows him who is lenient. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, there they stated: Practice outside the Land follows him who is lenient.