Siman 296

It is written in parashat Tetze: "You shall not sow your vineyard with kilayim, lest the fullness of the seed which you have sown and the fruit of the vineyard be forfeited." The Torah forbade sowing in a vineyard, as will be explained, and only in a vineyard specifically—meaning of grapes—and not in other trees. And even though an olive tree is also called a "vineyard," as is written regarding Samson (Judges 15): "and he burnt from the shocks even to the standing corn, and even to the olive vineyard," nevertheless, an olive vineyard is called by an accompanying name and not simply "vineyard" (Berakhot 35a). A "vineyard" without qualification refers only to one of grapes. According to Torah law, the prohibition applies only in Eretz Yisrael, as it is a commandment dependent on the land; however, we learned at the end of Orlah that in Chutz La'aretz it is forbidden by the words of the scribes. Because the Torah was more stringent regarding this than all other kilayim—for all other kilayim are permitted for benefit, but kilayim of the vineyard were forbidden by the Torah for benefit—therefore they decreed upon this even in Chutz La'aretz (Kiddushin 39b). And from where do we know that the Torah forbade it for benefit? As it is written, "lest it be forfeited [<i>pen tikdash</i>]," and the tradition arrived that <i>tikdash</i> is two words: <i>tukad esh</i> [it shall be burned in fire] (ibid. 56b). And this is like the plain meaning of the verse, "lest it be forfeited," that it shall be like <i>kodesh</i> which is forbidden for benefit (ibid.). However, the midrashic derivation is that redemption does not avail for it like <i>kodesh</i> (ibid.). And in the Yerushalmi at the beginning of the eighth chapter of Kilayim there are further derivations: it is written here "<i>pen</i>" and it is written "lest [<i>pen</i>] you be ensnared by them" regarding idol worship; just as there it is forbidden for benefit, so too here it is forbidden for benefit. And there are further derivations there regarding the prohibition of benefit.

And there is a question regarding this: since the Torah decreed "lest the fire be kindled," why is one not obligated to burn them? We do not find in the entire Shas, nor in the Rambam and all the poskim, that kilayim of the vineyard requires burning like chametz, as I wrote regarding orlah at the beginning of siman 294; see there. And it must be said that this is a mere asmachta, that redemption should not be effective for it as I wrote, but the primary intent of the Torah is that it be forbidden for benefit like holy items, according to the plain meaning of the verse. And there it was explained that they do not catch their value, and if they have owners, and with how much their nullification is—orlah and kilayim of the vineyard have one law; see there. And see what I wrote in section 15, that from the Rambam it can be inferred that one must burn them.

It is a well-known matter in the Shas, the dispute between R. Yonatan and R. Yoshiyah regarding kilayim of the vineyard. For R. Yonatan holds that when one sows a species of vegetable or grain in a vineyard, he is lashed according to the plain meaning of the verse, "You shall not sow your vineyard with kilayim," meaning that you shall not sow in a vineyard and they will be kilayim, vines with seeds. However, there is no need for two species of seeds in the vineyard, for if so, even without the vineyard there is a prohibition of kilayim of seeds; and thus his reasoning is explained in the Yerushalmi at the beginning of chapter 8. But R. Yoshiyah holds that one is not liable for kilayim of the vineyard until he sows wheat, barley, and a grape seed with a single hand-cast, meaning that he mixes two species of seeds with the sowing of the vineyard, which is the grape seed, and sows them across the field with a hand-cast. This is according to the manner of sowings where they cast by hand across the field, and then vines and two species of grain will grow. And likewise, if the vines are already planted, there is no prohibition unless he sows two species of grain or vegetables near the vines.

And if it is difficult, for if so, even without the vines it should be forbidden due to kilayim of seeds, the Yerushalmi resolves this: to transgress through two prohibitions. That is to say, that certainly even without the vines he is liable due to kilayim of seeds, but in this case he is liable for two prohibitions; see there, for it says that regarding whichever one they warned him about, he is lashed. Furthermore, regarding kilayim of seeds we are only particular about the distance of nourishment, as I wrote in siman 297, but in kilayim of the vineyard there are measurements larger than this, as will be explained in this siman. And the reasoning of R. Yoshiya is that it is understandable that "your field you shall not sow with kilayim," since the ground itself is called a field, its meaning is that you shall not sow kilayim of two species. But "you shall not sow your vineyard with kilayim," and a vineyard without vines is not called a vineyard, and regarding this it says "you shall not sow kilayim," implying that besides the vineyard there must be two species of seeds (Tosafot ibid.). Furthermore, a vineyard is not called "sowing," and the verse says that there must be a sowing of kilayim; learn from this that two species of seeds are required (Tosafot Chullin 82).

And behold, throughout the entire Shas there is the statement of Rabbi Yoshiyah: "Until one sows wheat, barley, and a grape seed with a single hand-motion." Rashi explained in Kiddushin there, and this is his wording: And "a single hand-motion" is derived by him from "You shall not sow your vineyard with kilayim," which implies that the sowing of the vineyard itself shall be with kilayim. Thus far his words. The explanation of his words is because it should have written "your vineyard you shall not sow with kilayim," just as it is written "your field you shall not sow with kilayim," which would imply that one should not sow two types of seeds in a vineyard. Now that "you shall not sow" precedes "your vineyard," it implies that "you shall not sow" also refers to the vineyard; that is, that at the time of the act, he also sows the vineyard with the kilayim, and the sowing of the vineyard is the grape seed. It implies from this that there is no liability except in such a case, and not when one sows kilayim in a grown vineyard. And it is a wondrous thing, for is seed superior to a tree? Behold, regarding the grafting of a tree in the previous siman, it was explained to the contrary, that seed is permitted and a tree is forbidden; see there. Furthermore, in the Yerushalmi at the beginning of chapter 8, it is stated: It is written, "You shall not sow your vineyard with kilayim," teaching that he is not liable until he sows two species in a vineyard—the words of Rabbi Yoshiyah; and he did not mention "a single hand-motion" in the vineyard, which refers to the grape seed. Furthermore, throughout the entire tractate of Kilayim, it deals with a case where the vineyard is already grown and he sows the seeds in it, which is forbidden if they did not distance them according to the law; and it implies explicitly that this is the primary prohibition. And granted that two types of seeds were also not mentioned throughout the entire tractate of Kilayim, yet regarding this it can be said that it is understood of itself, for the Mishnayot did not descend into the dispute between Rabbi Yoshiyah and Rabbi Yonatan; but if the primary prohibition is only that the vineyard also be sown now, it would be a complete reversal.

It appeared to my humble opinion to say that, on the contrary, it says "hand-sown in a vineyard" as a novelty; for regarding the grafting of a tree, it is only forbidden with an actual tree and not with seeds, as I wrote in the previous siman, and I would have said that regarding kilayim of the vineyard it is also so, that only in a grown vineyard is there a prohibition and not when one now sows the seed of the vineyard with the seeds of grain. To this it comes to teach us that even if one sows wheat, barley, and a grape seed by hand-sowing, he is liable for lashes, and certainly when one sows two types of grain in a vineyard. However, from the poskim it does not appear so, and the Tur wrote explicitly to the contrary. This is his wording: And it is not called kilayim of the vineyard unless one sows two types of grain or two types of seeds together with a grape seed, like R. Yoshiya who said, "until one sows wheat, barley, and a grape seed by hand-sowing." But one type with a grape seed, or two types among the vines, it is permitted ab initio to sow them outside the Land. Thus far his words. And the matters are not understood, and it requires great study. And the opinion of the Tosafot is not like the Tur, as I will write in the next section.

And behold, in Berakhot (22a) the Shas says the world conducts itself according to R. Yoshiya regarding kilayim of the vineyard, and in Kiddushin ibid. it asks simply: and do we not maintain like R. Yoshiya? See there. Our teachers, the authors of the Tosafot, wrote, and this is their wording: And it appears that the halakha is like R. Yoshiya, for even though we find several mishnayot that are not like him, such as "one who carries a perforated pot through a vineyard" and "one who trellises his vine over the grain of his fellow has sanctified it," nevertheless we maintain like him, etc., and it is permitted to sow beneath the vineyard, etc. Thus far their words. That is to say, the halakha is not like those mishnayot but rather like R. Yoshiya. Furthermore, from their words it is clarified as I wrote in the previous section, that it is not specifically required that the grape seed also be in the sowing by hand, for they wrote that it is permitted to sow beneath the vineyard because there are not two types of seeds here, but two types of seeds are forbidden. Yet according to the Tur, even with two types it is permitted in chutz la'aretz, and the Tosafot are standing regarding chutz la'aretz as they wrote there (and the Rosh in Hilkhot Kilayim siman 4 explained the intent of the Tosafot, that certainly in the earlier generations they did not rule like R. Yoshiya, and this accounts for all the mishnayot, but in later generations they began to conduct themselves like R. Yoshiya, and this is what Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak says there in Berakhot: "Now the world conducts itself," etc. See there).

The Rambam, of blessed memory, has an entirely different approach to this, and this is his wording in chapter 5: One who sows two species of grain or two species of vegetables with the seed of the vineyard, he receives two sets of lashes: one due to "you shall not sow your field with kilayim" and one due to "you shall not sow your vineyard with kilayim." And he does not receive lashes for sowing kilayim of the vineyard until he sows wheat, barley, and a grape seed with a single hand-motion; and similarly, if he covered them with earth, he receives lashes. And similarly, if he sowed two species of vegetable and a grape seed, or one species of vegetable and one species of grain and a grape seed with a single hand-motion, he receives lashes, etc. Thus far his words. And afterwards he wrote in law 7: It is forbidden to sow vegetables or grain beside vines, or to plant a vine beside vegetable or grain; and if he did so, even though he does not receive lashes, it has become sanctified and both are forbidden for benefit—the vegetable and the vines, or the grain and the vines. Thus far his words. And according to this, he holds that this teaching of Rava Yoshiyah is only regarding the matter of lashes, but regarding the matter of the prohibition, even one species of grain or vegetable in a vineyard, and not with a single hand-motion, is forbidden for benefit. And he explains "single hand-motion" as requiring that he perform an action with all three as one, for then he receives lashes; and therefore he wrote that if he covered them all with earth, he receives lashes. And according to this, for the Rambam, the mishnayot do not contradict this teaching of Rava Yoshiyah, for Rava Yoshiyah is for lashes and the mishnayot are for the prohibition alone.

And according to the opinion of the Rambam, the Tur wrote in the name of the Ra'avad, and this is the wording of the Tur: And the Ra'avad wrote that this which we require "until he sows etc." with a hand-cast is specifically regarding lashes, but there is a prohibition, and even if he sows one species among the vines. Thus far his words. And behold, the Rosh wrote there that according to the Ra'avad the prohibition is only rabbinic, for since the Torah only prohibited three together, from where do we know that it is called kilay ha'kerem if he did not do so? And according to the opinion of the Ri, there is not even a rabbinic prohibition etc. Thus far his words. And in my humble opinion it is astonishing, for the Rambam certainly holds that the prohibition is from the Torah, as he wrote in chapter 10 of Ma'akhalot Assurot, law 6, and this is his wording: Kilay ha'kerem, how so? A species of the species of grain or species of vegetables that were sown with the vine, whether an Israelite sowed them or a gentile sowed them, whether they grew on their own or whether he planted the vine within the vegetable, both are prohibited for eating and for benefit, as it is said, "Lest the fullness of the seed be sanctified and the fruit of the vineyard," meaning, keep distant and prohibit both of them. And one who eats a k'zayit of kilay ha'kerem, whether from the vegetable or from the grapes, receives lashes from the Torah, and both of them join together with one another. In what case does this apply? In the Land of Israel, but in the Diaspora it is by the words of the scribes. Thus far his words. Behold, he wrote explicitly that this is from the Torah and one receives lashes for its eating, and the Ra'avad did not dispute him; hear from this that he also holds so. And perhaps for this reason the Tur did not write in the words of the Ra'avad that the prohibition is rabbinic (and the Beit Yosef raised this as a difficulty against him, see there, and according to what I wrote it is well, and delve into it) and see in section 11.

And if it is difficult, for according to R. Yoshiya, from where do we derive the prohibition when there is no wheat, barley, and grape seed in a single hand-sowing, like the difficulty raised by the Rosh? For in truth, from the words of the Rambam that we cited in the previous section, the matters are understood, for everything is explicit in the Torah. And this is the explanation: "You shall not sow your vineyard with kilayim," and this refers to wheat, etc., in a single hand-sowing for the reason explained in section 5. And afterward it says, "lest the fullness of the seed and the increase of the vineyard be sanctified," meaning that regarding the prohibition of the produce and the vine, we only require one seed and a grown vineyard. And wherever it says "lest" (pen), it is a negative commandment, and therefore one who eats a kezayit of them is lashed as with consecrated property (hekdesh). Therefore, the Rambam cited there the verse "lest it be sanctified." And it is clear in the intention of the Rambam with the help of Heaven, and also the Ra'avad holds so in my humble opinion (and the prohibition is not from the perspective of the sowing but from the eating).

And this is in Eretz Yisrael, but in Chutz LaAretz, the Rambam wrote in chapter 8 of Hilkhot Kilayim, law 13, and this is his wording: All these measurements that one distances between the vines and the grain or the vegetable are only in Eretz Yisrael or in Syria, but in Chutz LaAretz it is permitted to sow next to the vines ab initio within the vineyard, and they only forbade in Chutz LaAretz to sow two species of vegetable or grain with the grape seed in a single handful, etc. And even though it is permitted to sow the vegetable next to the vineyard in Chutz LaAretz, behold that sown vegetable is forbidden for eating even in Chutz LaAretz, provided that he sees him picking and selling it, but its doubt is permitted, etc. Thus far his words. And ostensibly the words are puzzling, for since it is permitted to sow, how is it forbidden for eating? However, according to what I wrote, it is well-settled with good reason, for the Shas in Kiddushin said there that anything whose benefit is forbidden by the Torah, they decreed in Chutz LaAretz. And if so, it follows that to sow wheat and barley and grape seed in a single handful, which is the primary prohibition in Eretz Yisrael, they decreed also in Chutz LaAretz. But sowing in a vineyard, which is not the primary prohibition, they did not decree. But since by the Torah the benefit was forbidden in Eretz Yisrael when one sowed within the vineyard, it follows that they decreed also in Chutz LaAretz in a case of certainty and not in its doubt, for a rabbinic doubt is to the lenient side. And also they only forbade the vegetable, since it is the cause, and they did not forbid the grapes, even though in Eretz Yisrael the grapes are also forbidden; nevertheless, it is sufficient in Chutz LaAretz to forbid the vegetable alone. And it appears to me that he inferred this from the Mishnah: A vineyard planted with a vegetable and the vegetable is sold outside of it, etc., in Chutz LaAretz, etc. And we do not find except that they forbade the vegetable and not the grapes, since it is merely a decree. And this is implied in the entire sugya of Kiddushin there, that the prohibition is only on the vegetable.

And according to this, regarding the law, according to the opinion of our teachers the Tosafists, the Rosh, and the Tur, we establish the law like Rabbi Yoshiya; and even in Eretz Yisrael there is no prohibition unless one sows wheat, barley, and a grape seed with a single hand-motion, and without this there is no prohibition at all, neither in the sowing nor in the eating of the fruits. And all the mishnayot of kilayim regarding the distancing of vines from grain and vegetables are not the halacha. Therefore, the Tur omitted them entirely, for he did not mention at all any of the laws of kilayim of the vineyard explained in the mishnayot of kilayim. And the reason is as I have written, and there is no difference between Eretz Yisrael and outside the Land except that in Eretz Yisrael it is from the Torah and outside the Land it is rabbinic, and therefore its doubt is permitted.

But according to the Rambam and the Ra'avad, in Eretz Yisrael it is forbidden even to sow a single vegetable or a single grain without the proper distance, and if one sowed, both are forbidden. And outside of Eretz Yisrael, there is no prohibition in sowing in a vineyard, only that the vegetable or the grain is forbidden by rabbinic decree without the distance. And in the name of the Ramah, the Tur wrote that in Eretz Yisrael even one species is forbidden in a vineyard, and outside of Eretz Yisrael specifically with two species. And the Ran wrote similarly at the end of the first chapter of Kiddushin. And our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, followed in this entire siman after the opinion of the Rambam, as this is also the opinion of the Ra'avad, and so one should rule.

The Rambam wrote there in chapter 8 regarding kilayim of the vineyard that if one told a gentile child to sow for him outside the Land it is permitted, but he should not tell an adult so that it is not confused with an Israelite. Thus far his words. This is explained in the Gemara (Shabbat 139a). This refers to wheat, barley, and a grape seed in a single handful, as is understood. Nevertheless, it is difficult: for what benefit would he command him to sow since they were prohibited? Perhaps regarding a case of doubt it would be permitted. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote this law at the end of this siman, as well as the law of outside the Land. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote regarding this: And some say that since it is permitted to sow vegetables outside the Land next to vines, it is also permitted to eat those vegetables, and there is no concern except in a place where there is reason to fear that two types of vegetables or two types of grain were sown with a grape seed in a single handful; therefore, they practiced leniency in these provinces regarding vegetables found sown in vineyards, for it is not common that they were sown in a prohibited manner. Thus far his words. For since the prohibition outside the Land is rabbinic, and there are those who disagree with the Rambam even in the Land of Israel, and outside the Land many disagree with him as I have written, therefore one should be lenient like the lenient opinions.

The Rambam wrote in chapter 5, law 7, and in the Shulchan Aruch, section 3, that when they are forbidden for benefit, one burns both of them—the vegetable or the grain and the vines—as it is said, "lest it become sanctified." Even the straw of this grain and the wood of these vines are forbidden for benefit and one burns them; and one may not kindle an oven or a range with them, nor may one cook with them at the time of their burning. Thus far his words. And it implies somewhat that there is an obligation to burn, which is not like what was written in section 2 and in siman 294, section 3, but it does not imply so in any other place. Furthermore, if it is a decree of the verse to burn, why did we learn at the end of Temurah: "that which is the way to be buried shall be buried," regarding orlah and kilayim of the vineyard? Since the Torah would have required burning specifically. Therefore, it is possible to say that they spoke of the common way of the matter so that the masses do not stumble in this, and like that of Temurah, and it requires further study. And some say that the wood is permitted (the Gra, subsection 10). And one may not hoe with a gentile in his field of kilayim of the vineyard, but one may uproot with him in order to diminish the forbidden growth (Bava Metzia 90b). And the reason that one may not hoe is because this is like one who maintains kilayim; and regarding uprooting, it appears that even for a wage it is permitted, and even though he desires its existence so that it is not uprooted until he uproots them and takes his wage, nevertheless, anything to diminish the forbidden growth is considered fine (as is implied in the Gemara there; and see there in Tosafot that it deals with kilayim of seeds, but the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch who wrote this in this siman, it is explicitly explained that it deals with kilayim of the vineyard; see there in Tosafot and examine carefully).

The Rambam wrote in chapter 5, law 3, that one is not liable by Torah law except for hemp and arum and the like from seeds that ripen with the produce of the vineyard, but other seeds are forbidden by their words. Thus far his words. And in law 6 he wrote: Nothing is forbidden because of kilayim of the vineyard except species of grain and species of vegetables alone, but other species of seeds are permitted to be sown in a vineyard, and it goes without saying other trees. Thus far his words. And so it is in the Shulchan Aruch in section 1 and section 2. And the Ra'avad wrote that it is an error, for an error fell into his study, and he did not clarify his words (and also in the Kesef Mishneh he did not clarify his intent).

And behold, in Menachot (15b) we say: Hemp and arum were forbidden by the Torah in a vineyard; other seeds are forbidden by rabbinic law. Rashi explained that this is because hemp and arum, their seed does not perish, or because they have clusters like vines, and it is written: "your vineyard with kilayim," seeds that are similar to a vineyard; see there. The Rambam explains that it is because they reach completion with the produce of the vineyard. The Ran, of blessed memory, in the chapter "Reshit HaGez," clarified that the intention is not that besides hemp and arum there is no kilayim from the Torah, for certainly all five species of grain are the primary kilayim from the Torah; rather, it is to exclude other garden seeds that are not eaten, regarding which the Torah only forbade hemp and arum because they are similar to a vineyard; see there. Tosafot in Menachot there (s.v. "ve-hitiru") also wrote as a matter of course that grain is kilayim from the Torah; see there. Also from the words of the Rambam this is clarified, and this is what he wrote: Nothing is forbidden because of kilayim of the vineyard except species of grain and species of vegetables, etc., and it does not imply that this is by rabbinic law. And that which he wrote, "but other species of seeds are permitted," and previously he wrote that other seeds are forbidden by their words, both are true; for certainly all species of seeds that are eaten, such as legumes and the like, are forbidden by rabbinic law, and there are seeds that appear not to be fit for consumption at all and are completely permitted, as we learned at the end of the fifth chapter of Kilayim: Iris, ivy, the king's lily, and all species of seeds are not kilayim in a vineyard; hemp is kilayim, the artichoke is kilayim; see there. The Rambam wrote them in this chapter, laws 18 and 19, as will be explained with the help of Heaven.

This is the wording of the Rambam there: One who sees in a vineyard a grass that is not the way of people to sow, even though he desires its existence for livestock or for medicine, this has sanctified until he maintains something that the majority of the people in that place maintain. How so? One who maintains thorns in a vineyard in Arabia, where they desire thorns for their camels, this has sanctified. Ivy, and ivy-bush, and the "king's lily," and other types of seeds are not kilayim in a vineyard. Hemp, and artichoke, and cotton are like other types of vegetables and they sanctify in a vineyard. And so too, all types of grasses that grow on their own in a field, they sanctify in a vineyard. And the Egyptian bean is a type of seed and it does not sanctify. Reeds, and the rose, and buckthorns are types of trees and they are not kilayim in a vineyard. This is the general rule: anything that brings forth leaves from its root is a vegetable, and anything that does not bring forth leaves from its root is a tree. And the caper is a tree in every respect. Thus far his words. And the explanation of his words is as I have written: that grain and vegetables are forbidden by the Torah and they sanctify; types of edible seeds are forbidden by rabbinic law and do not sanctify. And that which he wrote that the Egyptian bean does not sanctify, meaning it does not sanctify but it is forbidden by rabbinic law. And seeds that are not edible and trees are completely permitted. And hemp and arum were forbidden by the Torah. And that which is for livestock and for medicine, if the majority of the people of the province maintain them, they are forbidden and they sanctify, and if not, they are forbidden and do not sanctify (as appears in my humble opinion regarding his intention).

The Ra'avad, of blessed memory, has another approach, as he wrote, and this is his wording: And the principle is thus: the iris, etc., are not kilayim in a vineyard, and the reason is because one does not maintain them. And there are likewise types of grasses that are not kilayim in a vineyard because one does not maintain them, and so it is in the Tosefta. Thus far his words. Therefore, he criticized him previously and wrote that it is an error; meaning, that the Rambam distinguishes between seeds and vegetables, and it is not so, for the distinction is only between something that is typically maintained and something that is not typically maintained, similar to thorns in a vineyard. And it appears that his criticism is only regarding the rabbinic prohibition where the Rambam distinguished as we have said, but regarding the Torah prohibition, even the Ra'avad admits that the Torah only forbade types of grain, hemp, and arum. Therefore, he did not criticize him on this law, but criticized him on what he wrote that there is no prohibition, etc., but other types of seeds are permitted, etc. And on this he criticized him, for it does not depend on this, but rather on that which is typically maintained, as he explained his words later regarding the law of the iris and the ivy, etc. And in truth, in the Tosefta chapter 3, it enumerates many things among seeds and many things among grasses that are not kilayim in a vineyard, and Rabbi Dostai disagrees regarding types of grasses and holds that they are kilayim in a vineyard, see there. And it appears that the Rambam ruled like him. And in the Yerushalmi at the end of chapter 5, part of this Tosefta is brought, and the words of Rabbi Dostai are not brought, see there. And the Rambam decided like Rabbi Dostai, and it seems to me his reason is that the language of the Gemara in Menachot indicates this: "other seeds are forbidden by rabbinic law," and it does not say "vegetables," from which one concludes that they are forbidden by Torah law. And because he saw that in the Mishnah at the end of chapter 5 it permits ivy, etc., entirely, therefore he distinguished according to the reasoning we explained.

Just as it is forbidden to plant kilayim, so too it is forbidden to maintain them. Once one sees kilayim growing in his vineyard and leaves them and does not uproot them, he has thereby caused sanctification and they are forbidden for benefit. If he performed an action for their maintenance, such as covering them with soil or the like, he is lashed. A person does not sanctify something that is not his; therefore, one who trellises his vine over the grain of his fellow, his vine is forbidden but the grain is not forbidden. If he trellised the vine of his fellow over his own grain, the grain is forbidden but not the vine. If he trellised the vine of his fellow over the grain of his fellow, both are permitted. Therefore, because of this, one who sows in the Shemittah year, they are not forbidden, for in Shemittah the grain and the fruits are not theirs (so ruled the Rambam there according to Rabbi Yose, Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi Akiva in Mishna 3 in chapter 7, and he retracted his commentary where he ruled according to the first Tanna, and so ruled the Bartenura, see there) and see in section 36.

The reason is implied in the Yerushalmi because it is written "your vineyard" and not that of others, see there; meaning, and presumably also "you shall not sow" applies when the seeds are yours. Therefore, even here where he performed an action—and we say in Chullin (40a) that even according to the one who says a person cannot forbid something that is not his regarding one who bows down to his fellow's animal, nevertheless if he performed an action upon it he has forbidden it, see there—yet here it is not so, because it is a decree of the verse. And one should not ask that if so, behold it is also written "your animal you shall not breed as kilayim," and we should say that it does not forbid that of others; but in truth, in Torat Kohanim, Parshat Kedoshim, it derives from that which is written "My statutes you shall keep" in the plural form that it is forbidden even with that of others. And so too "your field" which is written there, which deals with the grafting of trees as written at the beginning of siman 295, was also forbidden even with that of others. But here a plural inclusion is not written. (And from the Yerushalmi there it is clarified to me that for the Most High it is forbidden, see there; and that is to make libation wine from it, as it says there: a thing that is not yours, even though it is not forbidden to a commoner, it is forbidden to the Most High. And it is possible that this is according to the one who holds regarding an object of worship that the property of others is forbidden, see there carefully. However, we rule that it is permitted; but it appears to me that here, where there is an action, everyone agrees as in Chullin there, and delve into this.)

We learned in the Tosefta of Kilayim (chapter 3, halacha 12): A homeowner who maintained field vegetables in a vineyard, it is forbidden to him and forbidden to every other person; if another person maintained field vegetables in a vineyard, it is forbidden to him and permitted to every other person. Thus far its words. And the Rambam wrote this law in chapter 5, law 9, and this is his wording: One who sees kilayim in the vineyard of his fellow and maintained them, behold, this one who sees them is forbidden from their benefit, but all other people are permitted in them; and had the owner of the vineyard maintained them, he would have rendered them forbidden to every person. Thus far his words. And in the Shulchan Aruch it is in section 5. And in the Mishnah of Kilayim, chapter 5 (mishnah 6), we learned: One who sees a vegetable in a vineyard and said, "When I reach it, I will pick it," it is permitted; "When I return, I will pick it," if it increased by one two-hundredth, it is forbidden. See there. And the Rambam wrote this law there in law 21, and this is his wording: One who sees a vegetable in a vineyard and said, "When I reach it, I will pick it," it is permitted; if he reached it and passed over it and said, "When I return to it, I will pick it," if he delayed until it increased by one two-hundredth, behold, this is forbidden. Thus far his words. And in the Shulchan Aruch it is in section 16. But regarding "When I reach it, I will pick it," it is permitted to him even if it increased by one two-hundredth, since he was not lazy in this, it is not like one who maintains kilayim; but in passing over it, he was lazy and it is forbidden.

And in the Yerushalmi they said regarding this Mishnah: Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Hanina said, they taught this regarding a worker; a homeowner who is occupied with his work, they treated him like a worker. A homeowner who maintained field vegetables in a vineyard, they are forbidden both to him and to others. A worker who maintained, etc., it is forbidden to him and permitted to every person, etc., according to Rabbi Shimon who said a person does not consecrate something that is not his, etc. He admits that it is forbidden to him when another gathered them (so it should be said), but if he gathered them himself, it is forbidden both to him and to every person. Thus far his words. And in my humble opinion, this is the explanation: "They taught this regarding a worker," meaning that certainly regarding a complete stranger who has no connection to the vineyard at all, it is not relevant to say that in the absence of his nullification it should be forbidden even to him; rather, they taught this regarding a worker. And afterwards it says that a homeowner's law is also like a worker in this, according to the law of the Mishnah. And afterwards it brought the Tosefta that we cited and innovated regarding it that there too, when it said "another," the intention is a worker and not a complete stranger. And afterwards it said that even regarding a worker, when is it permitted to others? When another gathered for him, but what he gathered himself, the vegetable is forbidden to every person. And automatically, the Rambam as well, who employed the language of the Mishnah and the Tosefta, also intended it to refer to a worker. And certainly the plain meaning of the language is so, for if not so, how is it relevant for a stranger to say "when I arrive I will gather it"? And similarly in the Tosefta, how is it relevant to say "another who maintained"? And therefore the Rambam did not concern himself with explaining this. But I wonder why he did not transcribe the end of the Yerushalmi, that if he gathered them himself they are forbidden to every person. (And with what we have explained, the objection of the Ra'avad is answered; and the Kesef Mishneh and the commentator Pnei Moshe exerted themselves to answer the words of the Rambam with forced arguments according to their explanation of the Yerushalmi, but according to our words it works out well with simplicity, and delve into it).

And how do we know if they increased by a two-hundredth or not? We see, if this vegetable or this grain were cut from the earth, in how much time it would dry out. For example, if it dries out completely until no moisture remains in it in one hundred hours, we know that in a half-hour it increases by one part in two hundred. And if it remained in the earth from the time it reached the status of a vegetable and he did not harvest it for a half-hour, it has increased by a two-hundredth and is forbidden; if it did not remain for a half-hour, it is permitted. And there is another way to know, and that is that he uproots some stalks or a portion of the vegetable and weighs them, and afterward in a half-hour he weighs them [again]. And when they have decreased in weight by a tenth part, we know that in a half-hour they increase by a tenth part, for anything that begins to dry out decreases in weight, and automatically in the ground it is the opposite; and so too anything similar to this (Ra'avad there).

An extortionist who extorted a vineyard from an Israelite and sowed grain or vegetables in it—as long as the name of the owners has not been forgotten from it, meaning the vineyard is still called by the name of the first owner, and also he has not yet despaired of it—he does not forbid it at all, for we do not read concerning it "your vineyard." If the name of the owners was forgotten, even if they did not despair, this has become sanctified by Torah law. If the name of the owners was not forgotten but they despaired, it is sanctified by the words of the Scribes. Therefore, if an extortionist sowed the vineyard and one took it from the hand of the extortionist, he must harvest the seed immediately, and even on Chol HaMoed, so that it does not appear as if he is maintaining kilayim, even though the extortionist did not forbid it because the name of the owners was not forgotten and he did not despair. If he did not find laborers for their standard wage, he is obligated to add for them up to a third of their wage so that they uproot it immediately. However, if they ask for more or if he did not find laborers at all, he shall uproot them himself little by little. If the seed remained from the time he was able to harvest until it increased by one two-hundredth, it is forbidden (so it appears to me to interpret that which is written in the Rambam and in the Shulchan Aruch at the end of section 8: "And if the seed remained etc.," and as the Gra wrote in subsection 19, see there; and so it must be said regarding the words of the Rosh brought by the Kesef Mishneh in Halacha 12, see there).

And know that in the Yerushalmi (Chapter 7, Halacha 4) it asks regarding what has been explained, that if the owners despaired, even though the name of the owners was not forgotten from the vineyard, it is forbidden by the words of the Scribes; and it asks: is land ever stolen? And it answers: even though land is not stolen, nevertheless there is despair for land, see there. And the intention is not that by Torah law there is despair for land, for if so, why is its prohibition only rabbinic? Furthermore, it is explicitly proven at the beginning of the third chapter of Sukkah that there is no despair for land. Rather, it says rabbinically that there is despair regarding this matter, that the vineyard should be forbidden (Rash and Tosafot Sukkah ibid.). But when the name of the owners has been forgotten, even if he did not despair and also land is not stolen, nevertheless it belongs to the extortioner and we call it "your vineyard," and it is like one who cries out over his house that fell or over his ship that sank in the sea (Rif and the Rosh ibid.).

A wind that uprooted branches of a vine and cast them over grain or over vegetables, what should one do? Thus the sages taught in the Mishnah (Chapter 7, Mishnah 7): A wind that swirled the vines over grain, he must cut them down immediately; if an accident occurred, it is permitted. Grain that was leaning under the vine, and similarly with vegetables, he returns them and does not sanctify. See there. And this is the explanation: that it broke the vines but did not uproot them from the root, for in such a case when they are detached they do not forbid (Tosafot Yom Tov), but rather they are still attached, and returning them does not help them as in the end of the clause because they will return and bend over; therefore, he must cut and gather the fruit. And if an accident occurred, and when the accident passed it increased by a two-hundredth, it is forbidden. And grain that leans under the vine, he returns the grain from under the vines to its place, and even if he did not return it, he does not sanctify. And specifically when the base of the grain is under the vine, such that they are rooted under the vine, it forbids; but when the base stands outside the vine and it only leans under the vine, it does not forbid (Bartenura). Nevertheless, he returns it because it appears as if he is sustaining kilayim.

And it was taught in the Tosefta (Chapter 4, Halacha 7): A branch of a vine that was suspended over grain, even if it is one hundred cubits long, the entire vine is forbidden, both it and its fruit. Grain that leans under the vine, he must turn it back and it does not sanctify; and vegetables that lean into the vine, etc., he must turn them back, etc. Thus far its words. And from this it is clear that the covering of vines over the grain is more stringent than the leaning of the grain under the vines. And the reason is that in the leaning of the grain, the root is distant from the vines, which is not the case when the vines are over the grain, for the vines are unified with the root.

It is a self-evident matter that when one sows grain or vegetables under vines, they are not forbidden prior to their taking root; and similarly, if the grapes have not yet grown at all, the prohibition is not applicable. From when are grain or vegetables sanctified? From the time they take root. And grapes? From the time they become like a white bean. Grain that has dried completely and grapes that have ripened completely also do not sanctify. Therefore, if grapes have become like a white bean and one sowed grain or types of vegetables beside them, and he gathered the seed before it took root, it is permitted for benefit; but if it took root, it is forbidden. Similarly, a vineyard whose grapes have not reached the stage of being like a white bean, but rather are still unripe grapes, and one sowed vegetables or grain within it and they took root, this has not sanctified. Nevertheless, we penalize him and forbid the seed, but the unripe grapes are permitted since they are not a finished fruit. However, if he uprooted the seed before the grapes became like a white bean, it is permitted for benefit. If some of them became like a white bean and some did not, those that became so are sanctified, and those that did not are permitted.

A vine whose leaves have dried and fallen in the manner that a vine dries during the cold days, it is forbidden to sow vegetables or grain beside it, and if one sowed, he has not sanctified. Similarly, one who sows in a pot that is not perforated which is placed in a vineyard has not sanctified, whether it is of wood or of earthenware, but they strike him with a beating for rebellion. However, a perforated pot is like the earth. And the reason they forbade it ab initio with a dried vine is because in the winter the dry is not more recognizable than the moist, for they all appear dry, and they decreed regarding the dry because of the moist. And even in the summer when it is well recognized, nevertheless there are places where even in the summer the leaves fall and appear as dry, and they decreed this because of that (Yerushalmi chapter 7, halacha 2). And there are those who say that with one that is completely dry, it is permitted ab initio (the Ra'avad there).

If one was passing through a vineyard with seeds in his lap and the seeds fell from him, or if the seeds went out with the waste or with the water, or if he was sowing or winnowing in a white field—meaning of grain—and the wind carried it behind him and the seeds fell into the vineyard and grew, this has not become sanctified, as it is said: "which you shall sow," and this person did not sow. However, when he sees them, he is obligated to uproot them, and if he did not uproot them and they increased by a two-hundredth part, it is forbidden. But if the wind carried it before him and he saw the seeds that fell into the vineyard, this is like one who sows. And in the Yerushalmi, chapter 5 (halacha 6), it says that specifically when he stood in a white field and the wind carried it behind him into the vineyard it is permitted, but if he stood in a vineyard with seeds in his lap and the wind carried them, even behind him, it forbids, for he should have considered that the wind would carry them onto the vines. And what should he do when the wind carried it before him in a field of trees, or when standing in a vineyard in any manner, or even in a white field and behind him? When he sees them, if grasses have grown, he should overturn them with a plow and that is sufficient for him. And if he found that they became aviv—for the seed has already grown but has not reached a third of its growth (Bartenura)—he shall beat that aviv in order to destroy it, for everything is forbidden for benefit. And if he found that they became dagan, it must be burned. And if he saw them and maintained them, there is a further stringency that they must be burned along with the vines adjacent to them.

It is forbidden to carry a perforated flowerpot in which vegetables are sown through a vineyard. If one placed it under a grapevine and it remained there on the ground long enough to add one two-hundredth, it is forbidden, for the vegetable and the grapevines adjacent to it have become sanctified according to the measure that will be explained. Regarding an onion that one planted in a vineyard, and afterwards the vineyard was uprooted, and afterwards onions sprouted from the planted base—as is the way of onions—even though its growth exceeded its base by more than two hundred times against the base, nevertheless that base remains in its forbidden state along with the onions that sprouted, because the permitted growth does not neutralize the prohibition of the base. As I wrote in siman 294, section 37, that each bit as it grows is nullified, see there. And it is not specifically an onion, for the law is the same regarding other vegetables when it is their way to sprout from the base, and anything whose seed does not perish, such is their way; but regarding something whose seed perishes, it is impossible for it to be so, as is understood. See section 41.

How much is the measure of distancing grain and vegetables from vines, and if one did not distance them, they become sanctified? We find four types of distancing. That is, to sow within the vineyard, the distancing is sixteen amot, and this is what we learned in the Mishnah (Chapter 5, Mishnah 5): One who plants vegetables in a vineyard or maintains them, etc., this sanctifies sixteen amot in every direction, circular and not square. And one who sows at the side of a vineyard, the distancing is four amot, as is explained in Chapter 4. And from an individual vine, the distancing is six tefachim, and it is explained in Chapter 3. And as the Rambam wrote at the beginning of Chapter 7, and this is his wording: One who comes to sow at the side of a vineyard distances himself four amot from the roots of the vines and sows; and if it is an individual vine, he distances himself six tefachim and sows; and when there is a fence between them ten tefachim high, he does not need distancing at all. And so we learned in "Lo Yachpor" (26a): A person may not plant a tree near the field of his fellow unless he distanced it four amot from it, whether vines or any other tree; if there was a fence between them, this one may place it close to the fence from here, and that one may place it close to the fence from here.

The reason for all this is that it is a great principle in kilayim that we are not concerned with the drawing of nourishment of the roots from one another, for we do not care about what is beneath the ground, and the Torah was strict that they should not be mixed with one another from above, as is the implication of the term kilayim. And so the sages taught in the Mishnah in the third chapter of Kilayim (Mishnah 5) regarding kilayim of seeds, and this is the wording of the Mishnah: For everything that the sages forbade, they only decreed because of mar'it ha'ayin. And even kilayim of the vineyard is so, as Rashi, of blessed memory, wrote in Shabbat (84b, s.v. ve'echad), and this is his wording: For regarding kilayim, it is a recognizable distinction that we require, so that there should not be a mixture, for the verse is strict regarding kilayim; but regarding the drawing of nourishment we are not concerned, even regarding kilayim of the vineyard which is from the Torah, as we learned: This one may place it close to the fence, etc. Thus far his words. And this fact that from the side of the vineyard one must distance four amot, this is because this is the measure of the cultivation of the vineyard, as we say in Bava Batra there: It was taught, the four amot they mentioned are for the sake of the cultivation of the vineyard; see there. And this is the wording of the Bartenura at the beginning of the fourth chapter of Kilayim: For the cultivation of the vineyard is four amot because they would harvest with oxen and wagons, and at the time of plowing they plow them with oxen; therefore, those four amot are considered like the vineyard; see there. And from a single vine, six tefachim, because such is the cultivation of a single vine, and so we learned at the end of the third chapter in the Mishnah, that for a single vine they give it its cultivation of six tefachim; see there. However, inside the vineyard, where there is no recognizable distinction at all, for they are absolute kilayim, in this they followed the measure of the drawing of nourishment, for in another manner it is impossible, as in this the cultivation of the vineyard is not applicable, for that is outside the vineyard; but inside it, the measure of the drawing of nourishment is required, and we say in Bava Batra there that the measure of the drawing of nourishment of a tree is sixteen amot; see there.

And there is a question regarding this: since the distancing of four amot is due to the cultivation of the vineyard, and in Bava Batra we say there that in Babylonia the cultivation of the vineyard is two amot and only in the Land of Israel did they have a large plow, and if so, in Babylonia it should be sufficient to distance two amot? And this matter we have found neither in the Shas nor in the Rambam. And the answer to this is that certainly even outside the Land of Israel many places are found where the ground is hard and requires a large plow, and their cultivation is four amot (and see Tosafot ibid. s.v. "But"), and Babylonia is not the majority of the world (Eruvin 28a), and therefore the sages did not differentiate.

And there is further to ask, for behold, regarding kilayim of seeds we learned in a Mishnah in chapter 2 (mishnah 7): If his was wheat and his fellow's was another species, it is permitted to place that species adjacent to it, see there. And we learned from this that it is permitted for Reuven to place his wheat adjacent to the barley of Shimon, and as the Rambam wrote in chapter 3, law 16. This is his wording: In what case is it said that one requires a distance? When he sows within his own field. But if his field was sown with wheat, it is permitted for his fellow to sow barley at its side, as it is said, "Your field you shall not sow with kilayim"—the prohibition is only that he shall not sow his field with kilayim, for it was not said, "The land shall not be sown with kilayim." Thus far his words. And if so, also regarding kilayim of the vineyard, behold it is written, "You shall not sow your vineyard with kilayim," and we should also say so: specifically "your vineyard," but in the vineyard of others it should be permitted for you to sow kilayim. Yet behold, we maintain that one who sows in the vineyard of another, his crop is forbidden, and only the vineyard is not forbidden because a person cannot forbid something that is not his, but his crop is forbidden, as I wrote in section 100, see there. And behold, "your vineyard" is written, and it is not written, "Vineyards shall not be sown with kilayim." And the answer to this is as it was taught in the Sifrei (Parshat Ki Teitzei, piska 230): I only have your vineyard; from where do I know the vineyard of others? The verse teaches, "You shall not sow your vineyard," in any case. Thus far his words. And in the Torat Kohanim, Parshat Kedoshim, they did not expound thus regarding "Your field you shall not sow with kilayim." Therefore, regarding kilayim of the vineyard, it is forbidden even in that of others. And the reason, it seems to me, is because there the verse preceded "your field" to "you shall not sow," and it implies specifically "your field," which is not the case regarding kilayim of the vineyard, and this is the intent of the Sifrei (as mentioned above). And this does not contradict what I wrote in section 2, for that is a different matter.

The Rambam wrote at the beginning of chapter 6: One who sows grain or herbs in a vineyard, or one who maintains it until it increased by one part in two hundred, this person prohibits the vines surrounding it for sixteen cubits in every direction, circular and not square. And we view the entire circle, the width of which is thirty-two cubits, as if it is entirely filled with herbs, and every vine that is within this circle is prohibited along with the herbs; and anything outside the circle is not prohibited. In what case does this apply? When there was more than four cubits between the edges of this circle and the rows of vines outside of it. But if there were exactly four cubits between them, or less, we view the circle as if it reached the adjacent row, and as if the width of the circle is forty cubits; and we see every vine that falls within this circle of forty cubits as prohibited. In what case does this apply? Regarding one who sows or maintains within the vineyard. But regarding one who sows outside the vineyard and placed it close to it (within its four cubits), this person prohibits two rows of vines adjacent to the seed along the entire length of the seed, and an additional four cubits beyond the seed. And from the seed, a width of four cubits is prohibited along the entire length of the row of the vineyard. If he sowed beside a single vine, he only prohibits from the seed six handbreadths in every direction. Thus far his words. And so it is in the Shulchan Aruch from section 19 until section 22, and we shall explain the matters.

It has already been explained that the nourishment from the vine is sixteen amot, and when one sows within the vineyard, it is forbidden according to the measure of nourishment, as I wrote in section 33. Consequently, they are circular and not square, because in a square the diagonal is more than sixteen, and the nourishment travels equally all around. Sixteen amot in every direction results in a nourishment measure totaling a circle of thirty-two amot by thirty-two amot, and all the trees within this circle are forbidden, for even the furthest trees are not distant more than sixteen amot and the vegetable draws nourishment from them. This is what he meant by saying that we view the circle as if it were full of vegetables; that is to say, the vines draw nourishment from the vegetable and the vegetable from the vines. And because the prohibition here is due to the nourishment beneath the ground, for this reason he says "as if they were above the ground," but those distant from this circle, the nourishment will not reach from one to the other, as is understood. However, even though the nourishment does not reach there, nevertheless, the four amot of the cultivation of the vineyard are like the vineyard itself. If so, the vines that are within four amot of this circle are automatically forbidden. For this reason he says: In what case does this apply? When there was more than four amot between the edges of this circle and the rows of vines outside of it. But four amot, and certainly less, the vines there are also forbidden due to the cultivation of the vineyard. Consequently, when four amot are added to each side, eight amot are added to the thirty-two amot from east to west and eight amot from north to south, and also in a circle, and the width of the circle becomes forty amot. And everything within this circle—that is, within forty amot—becomes sanctified.

And all this is when he sowed within the vineyard, but when he sowed outside the vineyard and placed it adjacent to the vineyard within four amot, which is the measure of "outside the vineyard" as I have written, he renders forbidden two rows of vines, which is the measure of a vineyard as will be explained. He also renders forbidden four amot on the second side, corresponding to the cultivation area of the vineyard, and from the seed, everything within the four amot adjacent to the vineyard is forbidden. And all this is when the length of the seed extends along the entire length of the vineyard, for if not so, it only renders forbidden until the point where the seeds end. And if he sowed beside a single vine, it only renders forbidden for a span of six tefachim as I have written; and not specifically a single vine, for the same law applies to many vines if they are only in one row, for less than two rows is not called a vineyard and their law is like a single vine, as will be explained (and this is the explanation of the words of the Rambam).

And how many vines must be in the two rows to be called a kerem? No fewer than five vines, such that three stand in one row and two in a second row opposite two from the first row. This is called in the language of the Mishnah (beginning of chapter 5) "two opposite two and one protruding as a tail," meaning it is alone, for there is no vine opposite it in the second row. And it has already been explained in siman 294 regarding the matter of orlah that a young vine that is not a tefach high is not called a tree at all. Therefore, a young vine less than a tefach does not sanctify the seeds. And it is not only necessary to say regarding a single vine, but even "two opposite two and one protruding as a tail" does not sanctify. However, if the entire kerem is so, it does sanctify. And it appears to me that it is by rabbinic decree because it has a reputation, as is proven in Sotah (43b) and as I wrote in siman 294; see there.

It is stated in the Yerushalmi (Chapter 7, Halacha 2) that the airspace of the vineyard at a height of ten tefachim above the ground has the status of the vineyard itself, and if one placed a perforated flowerpot upon pegs that are not higher than ten tefachim from the ground and sowed vegetables within it, the vines and the vegetables are forbidden (and we do not rule like Rabbi Elazar ben Tzadok in the Mishnah there, that over the vine it does not sanctify, as the Rambam and the Bartenura wrote). And we say there that even the airspace of a single vine occupies up to ten tefachim, see there. And I am astonished that the Rambam did not bring this law. And at the end of the chapter there it is also stated that one who carries a perforated flowerpot through a vineyard below ten tefachim, and it increased by one two-hundredth, it is forbidden; see there carefully (and according to the Pnei Moshe there).

And in the Yerushalmi there (Chapter 6, end of Halacha 2) it is stated: Two gardens, one above the other, the lower one is made into a vineyard and the upper one is not made into a vineyard—one may sow the upper one until he reaches within ten handbreadths of the airspace. Rabbi Bun asked before Rabbi Zeira: Does this not say that the slope of a terrace is like the lower area? He said to him: Because the seeds lean into the airspace of the vineyard. That is to say, previously it says there that the slope of a terrace is a domain unto itself, and here it implies that it is literally within the lower area and is considered like the vineyard itself, for the two gardens go along the slope of the mountain, as is understood. And Rabbi Zeira answers him that here the reason is not because the slope is considered like the lower area, but rather that which is forbidden to sow is because the seeds will be leaning into the airspace of the vineyard of the lower one, and the airspace up to ten is like the vineyard, as I have written. And the Yerushalmi concludes that if it is the opposite—the upper one is made into a vineyard and the lower one is not made into a vineyard—one may sow the lower one and the terrace until he reaches three handbreadths near the vines, for the seeds fall downward and not upward. And in this too, it is not because the slope is considered like the lower area, but it is a domain unto itself, and because of this it is permitted to sow it, for in this there is no concern that the seeds will be leaning into the airspace of the vines, for they lean downward toward the seeds and not upward toward the vines.

This is the wording of the Rambam in chapter 6, law 5: Two gardens, one above the other, if the lower one is made into a vineyard, one may sow the upper one until he reaches the airspace of ten tefachim adjacent to the vineyard, for the airspace of ten tefachim adjacent to a vineyard or to a single vine is forbidden to sow seeds therein. And if the upper one was made into a vineyard, he may sow the lower one until he reaches below three tefachim from the base of the vines. Thus far his words. And in the Shulchan Aruch it is in section 23, and he was very brief and it is not understood at all, but his intention is like the Yerushalmi that we brought, which is the source of this law.

One whose field was sown with vegetables or grain and he reconsidered to plant vines in it, he turns over the seeds with a plow and afterwards plants, but he may not plant and afterwards turn over, lest he be negligent in this. And it appears to me that post facto, if he planted and afterwards turned over, it is permitted. And similarly, if it was planted with vines and he reconsidered to sow grain or vegetables in it, he uproots the vines and afterwards sows. And if he wished to cut the vines until there remains of them only less than a handbreadth close to the ground, he is permitted to sow and afterwards he shall return and uproot what remains of the vines in the ground (Mishnah chapter 2). And it appears to me the reason they permitted in this case is because they did not want to forbid the sowing to him until he uproots, for this requires a long time; and even so, they did not fear lest he not uproot, because he will be compelled to do this after he cut them, for if not so, the land is fit neither for vines nor for grain, and perforce he will uproot them.

It is stated in the Yerushalmi there: It was taught, one may lean sheaves next to vines; that is to say, we are not concerned that perhaps seeds will fall from the sheaves to the ground and produce plants, which would be kilayim in the vineyard. And even though when they are sheaves we are not concerned, nevertheless while they are attached, even if the grain has dried out, it is nonetheless forbidden to plant vines next to it. But the reverse, next to dried vines, it is permitted to sow; see there. And the reason is simple: for with dried vines there is no concern, but with grain that has dried, we concern ourselves that from the dryness seeds will fall to the ground and produce plants, whereas with sheaves they did not concern themselves because they have already been detached and it is not their way to fall. And it is further stated there regarding what has been explained, that they permitted him to cut the vines until there remains only less than a tefach, as I have written: that if they subsequently grew more, the grain until now is permitted, for they permitted him to do so, but from here on it is forbidden and he is obligated to uproot them immediately or cut them back to less than a tefach; see there. And the Rambam did not write these laws, and I do not know why. He also ruled regarding a vine that dried out that it is forbidden to sow there, though it does not sanctify, as I wrote in section 30 and in the Mishnah at the beginning of chapter 7. And I wonder about this, for since in the Yerushalmi there and in chapter 2 (halacha 3) Rabbi Elazar said that this Mishnah is according to Rabbi Meir, but the sages disagree and hold that it is permitted even initially to sow there, see there; and we do not find anyone who disagrees with Rabbi Elazar, why did the Rambam not rule accordingly? This requires further study.

We learned in the Mishnah (Chapter 7, Mishnah 2): One who layers three vines and their trunks are visible, if there is between them from four cubits until eight, behold these combine; and if not, they do not combine. And this is the explanation: that he made two branches from one vine, such that he did not lay it all in the ground, but rather its head emerges from another side, and from three they became six, and there are among them two opposite two and one emerging as a tail, and the third does not require layering, for without the layering there are five, as is understood. If there is between vine and vine, and likewise between the two that emerged from one, from four until eight—for this is the measure between vine and vine according to the way of planters, not less than four cubits, for less than that they are crowded and stand to be uprooted, and not more than eight, for more than eight each one is like a solitary vine—behold these combine to be a vineyard, and one must distance four cubits according to the law of the cultivation of a vineyard. And if not, they do not combine, and one need not distance more than six handbreadths according to the law of a solitary vine. Thus explained the Rash, the Rosh, and the Bartenura, and so wrote the Ra'avad in Chapter 6, Law 9; see there.

But the Rambam there inclined the Mishnah toward a different intention, and this is his wording: One who layers three vines and their trunks are visible, if there is between them from four cubits until eight, behold these join with the rest of the standing vines and it is as if he did not layer them; and if not, they do not join. If they were fewer than three, they do not join, but rather he distances from them six handbreadths in every direction and sows. Thus far his words. And in the Shulchan Aruch it is in section 26. And it appears to me that for the Rambam it was difficult: what is the meaning of the language "join" and "do not join"? It should have said "behold this is a vineyard" or "is not a vineyard." Furthermore, why are three needed? Behold, with two it is sufficient, and it did not appear to him that it was not exact. Furthermore, why does it teach "and if not, etc."? It is obvious; are they better than complete vines? And the Rosh already raised this difficulty, see there. Therefore, he explained that the "joining" is to other vines; that is to say, that fewer than three are not significant enough to leave the category of the vineyard even if there is not four cubits in the span of the layering or if there is more than eight. However, when he layered three, then if there is between them from four cubits until eight, they remain within the category of the vineyard as before, and if not, they leave the category of the vineyard and their law is like individual vines. And it is possible that regarding the essence of the law he does not disagree with them, and even without other vines the law is so. And it is a simple matter that regarding the matter of providing six handbreadths, they provide it also on the side of the layering in the place where it emerges, and so it is explained in the Yerushalmi there before this Mishnah, see there. (The Rashbam in Bava Batra chapter 3 explained like the Rash, see there; and the Ramban wrote there that two trees in any case do not join to the vineyard, and the Kesef Mishneh brought him here, see there, and it is somewhat puzzling why it is so; and in any case the explanation of the Rambam is a spacious explanation, and the Ra'avad contested him, but this is not a contest, and delve into it).

Anyone who sows under the tendrils and the leaves extending from the vine has thereby created kilayim, even though the seed is many cubits distant from the trunk of the vine. And if one trained the vine over a portion of the poles—which are long reeds upon which one trains the vine tendrils when they are very long—one may not sow under the remainder of the poles, even though they have neither leaves nor tendrils upon them. But if one did sow, since the seed is not under the covering of the vine, it is permitted. And so too if one trained the vine over a portion of the branches of a non-fruit-bearing tree, such as the cedar or the cypress. However, if one trained it over a portion of a fruit tree, it is permitted to sow under the branches of the tree over which the vine tendrils were not extended, for a person does not nullify a fruit tree and make it into a pole for a vine; but that specific branch is entirely forbidden, even the part of it over which the vine was not extended (Tosefot Yom Tov chapter 6, mishnah 4, beginning with "And the rest"). And if the tendrils extended after one sowed over the other branches and covered the seed, one must move the tendrils to another place. But one who sows under the remainder of the poles or under the remainder of a non-fruit-bearing tree, and the vine tendrils extended and covered the seeds, it is forbidden to maintain it, and it is also forbidden to move the tendrils; rather, what should one do? He must uproot the seeds entirely.

There are trellises that, because of their length, are supported by reeds and they extend further, and this is called in the language of the Mishnah an "aris." Therefore, reeds extending from the aris, and he is concerned about cutting them so as not to destroy the trellis, it is permitted to sow beneath them because they are secondary to the secondary of the vines themselves. However, if he placed them and his intention was so that the branches and leaves that extend should also travel upon them, they too have become like the trellis, and it is forbidden to sow beneath them as with the trellis itself.

It is a self-evident matter that the four amot of the avodat hakarem must be left from the place where the tendrils and leaves end from the trellises. And we learned in a Mishnah (end of chapter 6): A blossom that extends from an aris, we view it as if a plummet were hanging from it; opposite it is forbidden. And so too with a dalit, see there. And this is the explanation: if the tendrils and leaves extend far beyond the aris, meaning more than the four amot that constitute the avodat hakarem, it is forbidden to sow opposite them even though the aris has already ended. However, in this there is a leniency, for one does not need to leave from there and further four amot for the avodat hakarem. And this is what it meant by "as if a plummet were hanging from it," meaning this is the weight that builders lower by a rope along the face of the building to see if it goes straight. And so too here, the seeds that are under the blossom are forbidden and no more. And so too with a dalit, meaning a single vine that is trellised upon poles, if it blossomed beyond six tefachim, which is its work area, likewise opposite it is forbidden and no more, for one does not need six tefachim from there.

And similarly, one who stretches a vine-shoot from tree to tree, only underneath it is forbidden; but if he tied a rope or papyrus to the vine-shoot and tied the other end to the tree, it is permitted to sow under the rope or the papyrus, and it is not similar to a vine-shoot which is of the essence of the vine. However, if his intention in stretching the rope and the papyrus was so that the tendrils and leaves would travel upon it, this is like a trellis and it is forbidden to sow under it, and its law is like the vine-shoot itself.

The Rambam wrote at the beginning of chapter 7: One who comes to sow at the side of a vineyard must distance himself four amot from the roots of the vines and sow. If it is a single vine, he distances himself six tefachim from it and sows. If there was one row of vines, one beside the other, even if there are a hundred, this is not a vineyard but is like a single vine, and he distances himself six tefachim from the row and sows. If there were two rows, this is a vineyard and he must distance himself four amot from every side and afterwards he may sow. And how many must be in each row? Three vines or more. Thus far his words. And even though also with two opposite two and one protruding as a tail it is sufficient, this is when they are planted in this formation where one protrudes as a tail; but without this formation, one requires three and three (Tosafot Yom Tov chapter 4, mishnah 5). And so it implies in the Yerushalmi, chapter 4, end of halacha 1, which said: And what is a small vineyard? Three opposite three, see there. And it appears to me that according to this explanation, "one protruding as a tail" is called specifically like this { } and not when three stand in one row, for in one row { } we require three opposite three, but rather that the fifth stands far from them and opposite the space between them. And there are those who explained two in a row and three in a row (Bartenura chapter 4, mishnah 6, and see there in Tosafot Yom Tov).

He further wrote: In what case does this apply? When there was between each and every vine from four cubits until eight cubits. But if there were eight cubits between the two rows, excluding the place of the vines, behold these are as if separated from one another and it is not one kerem, and one only distances six tefachim from each row. And likewise, if there were less than four between them, behold these are as a single vine and one distances six tefachim to every side. If there were three rows, even though there is less than four between them, behold these are a kerem, and we view the middle ones as if they are not there. And likewise, if there were three rows and between each and every row there were eight cubits or more, behold this person may sow between the rows. Therefore, one who plants his kerem at the outset and distanced eight cubits between each and every row, it is permitted to bring seed into it, and he distances from each and every row six tefachim alone. But if he sowed outside of it, he must distance four cubits from the outer row as with other keremim, and the law of "between the rows" of this kerem is not like a kerem that was destroyed in its middle, for behold, at the outset he planted them far apart. Thus far his words. And in the Shulchan Aruch it is from section 31 until section 35.

The explanation of his words is that regarding a bald spot of a vineyard, which is a vineyard that was destroyed in its center, the distance is sixteen amot so that he may be able to sow seeds, as we learned at the beginning of chapter 4: A bald spot of a vineyard, etc., Beit Hillel say sixteen amot. However, one who plants his vineyard from the outset, there is a dispute there, as we learned there in mishna 9: One who plants his vineyard at sixteen amot is permitted to bring seed there, etc. Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon say: Even one who plants at eight amot is permitted. And he ruled like Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon because in the Yerushalmi there, Rav said the halacha is like Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon, see there. And this is what he says, that this law is not like a vineyard that was destroyed, etc., meaning that there we require sixteen amot, but here, since he planted it from its outset in this arrangement, eight amot are sufficient. And that which he wrote, that on the outside one must distance four amot like all vineyards, this is because of appearance, for on the outside they do not perceive that it is different from other vineyards. And they questioned him: From where did he take this? (Ravad and Kesef Mishneh). And it appears that it is from the Yerushalmi there which says: Its interior is eight, its exterior is sixteen, see there. And he explains that specifically sixteen does not require distancing outside of it because even from afar the difference is visible, but less than sixteen is not recognizable from afar (and the Tosafot Yom Tov and the Pnei Moshe there were pressed, and in my humble opinion the explanation is as I wrote, and there is no need for the pressure of the Tosafot Yom Tov regarding the law of sixteen, nor for the pressure of the Pnei Moshe that he learned it from a machol, but rather as I wrote, and examine it closely).

And in this, that he divides the law of less than four amot between row to row, between two rows and three rows—and in Mishnah 2, Chapter 5, we learned: A vineyard that is planted at intervals of less than four amot, Rabbi Shimon says it is not a vineyard, and the Sages say we view the middle ones as if they are not there, see there—and he ruled in the case of two rows like Rabbi Shimon and in three rows like the Sages. And in truth, his path is wondrous in this, and they labored over this, and he also omitted everything stated regarding this in the Yerushalmi. And in my humble opinion, it appears that because in Bava Batra (83a) the Gemara brought this Mishnah and compares kilayim to a sale, and Rava ruled the halakhah is from four amot until sixteen, see there; therefore, he ruled like Rabbi Shimon. And in the Yerushalmi on this Mishnah it is stated: Rabbi Shimon said to them, those that you say we view the middle ones as if they are not there, behold they are the essence of the vineyard. Thus far his words. And it appears to me that this is the explanation: it is well that in three rows we say so, for there still remains the form of a vineyard; but "those that you say," meaning in two rows, behold they are the essence of the vineyard, since there are only two rows and the edges are the essence of the vineyard. And from this he learned that Rabbi Shimon in three rows concedes (as appears in my humble opinion).

If there was in this field one row of vines and in the field of his fellow another row opposite it, close to it by less than eight amot, even though a private path or something like a public path—meaning a public trail—or a fence that is lower than ten tefachim separates them, these combine for both of them to be a kerem. And likewise, if he planted one row on the ground and one row on a terrace, if the terrace is ten tefachim higher than the ground they do not combine; less than this, they combine.

One who plants five vines, two opposite two and one extending as a tail, this is called a small kerem and one must distance from them four amot in every direction. But if he planted them two opposite two and one in the middle, or three in a row and two completely opposite them in a second row—specifically, one opposite the first and the second opposite the third—it is not a kerem and does not require distancing except for six tefachim in every direction, according to the law of a single vine. And in section 52 we explained that according to the Rambam, the one extending as a tail must stand opposite the middle space; see there.

A vineyard that was destroyed, but there remains in it enough to gather ten vines for every beit seah, and they are planted two etc., or there is in it enough to align three against three, this is called a sparse vineyard and it is forbidden to sow in all of it, for even with three against three it is a vineyard, as I wrote in section 52. And similarly, a vineyard that is not planted in rows upon rows but is mixed, if there is in it enough to align two against three, as has been explained, or three against three, it is a vineyard; and if not, it is not a vineyard, and their law is like an individual vine, and one distances six tefachim from each and every vine and sows. And the general rule is that regarding the matter of alignment of one against the other, we follow the trunk, for if the trunk is aligned two against etc., even though the branches are not aligned, we have no concern with it. And conversely, if the trunk is not aligned, even though the branches are aligned, it is of no avail, for in most laws of trees we follow only the trunk and not the branch. And know that if in the thinness of the vines they are not aligned, and when they thickened they became aligned, it is called aligned and this is a vineyard. And how is it known if they are aligned? One brings a measuring cord and stretches it from this one to that one in the manner that builders do.

It has already been explained in section 54 that a vineyard that was destroyed in its center, the distancing is sixteen amot, but in one that was made this way from its beginning, eight amot is sufficient. And one should not ask: behold, it was explained in section 33 that even in a complete vineyard the distancing within it is sixteen amot according to the measure of nourishment, yet this is when it is full of vines, and because there is no distinction we are particular regarding the measure of nourishment, as I wrote in section 34. However, when the vines are distant from one another, eight amot is sufficient. Yet in a vineyard that was full and was destroyed, sixteen amot are required, and this also only amounts to eight amot. How so? For four amot on each side are the cultivation of the vineyard, and automatically there only remain eight amot.

Therefore, we learned at the beginning of the fourth chapter: A karachat of the vineyard is sixteen amot, and then one distances four amot from the roots of the vines on every side and sows the remaining eight in the middle of the karachat. And if there are not sixteen amot there, he shall not bring seed there, for the remainder on each side is nullified. Nevertheless, if he distanced four amot and sowed, he has not caused kiddush, since there is a measure of four amot for the labor of the vineyard on each side; but within four amot on any side, when he sows, he causes kiddush and it is forbidden for benefit.

And similarly, a place that remains vacant without vines between the end of the vineyard and its fence, this is called the machol of the vineyard, meaning that it is the way of owners to leave this place and waive it by not planting there; if there are twelve amot within it, one distances four amot from the vines and sows, but less than this is forbidden. And the reason is that the four amot adjacent to the vines are the cultivation area of the vineyard, and the four amot adjacent to the fence are also nullified, as they leave it for passage, and therefore if four amot remain, it is a significant place, and if not, it is nullified and one shall not bring seed there. And if he did bring, since he distanced four amot, he has not sanctified; but within four amot of the vines, he has sanctified, and in the eight from there to the wall, he has not sanctified.

The Rambam wrote in chapter 7, law 13: In what case are these things said? Regarding a large vineyard; but regarding a small vineyard, it has no machol, rather one distances four amot from the vines and sows until the fence. And similarly, a large vineyard that had eight amot or more between every row and row has no machol. Thus far his words. And in Shulchan Aruch, section 43. And this is from the Yerushalmi, chapter 4 (end of halacha 1), and the reason stated there is so that the area outside it should not be more stringent than its interior, for in its interior, with eight amot, it is permitted to sow, and outside it would be twelve amot. For it has already been explained that a vineyard planted at eight amot, it is permitted to bring seed there after six tefachim, as I wrote in section 53. And how much is a small vineyard? The Rambam did not see fit to explain, for he already explained that a small one is three opposite three, or two opposite two and one protruding as a tail, and three rows are called large. (And the difficulty of the Kesef Mishneh is answered, see there, and there is a scribal error there and it should be: "behold three opposite three opposite three," and also in the Yerushalmi there is a scribal error, and according to the Pnei Moshe, and study it).

The Rambam further wrote there in law 14, and in the Shulchan Aruch section 44: If the fence surrounding the vineyard was less than ten tefachim, or if its height was ten tefachim but it did not have a width of four tefachim, it does not have a machol; rather, one distances himself four amot from the end of the vines and sows up to the partition. Even if there were four and a half amot between the vines and the partition, he sows the half amah. Thus far his words. And the reason appears to be that whenever there is not a significant fence in height and width, it is not of significance to leave for it four amot for passage, and consequently, one only requires four amot for the labor of the vineyard. Furthermore, the four amot in the middle for a significant place are not required, as this only applies when the prohibition takes hold from two places; and this is what he wrote, that even if there only remains a half amah, he sows it, meaning that we do not require a significant place of four amot.

We have already written in section 33 that when there is a fence between the vines and the seeds, this one may place his vines close to the fence from here and that one may place the seeds close, because in kilayim they did not follow the path of the roots' nourishment but rather the path of visual distinction, as was written there. Therefore, a fence that is ten tefachim high, and similarly a trench that is ten deep and four wide—for a trench, when it is not four tefachim wide, is not discernible at all, whereas a fence does not require width because it is discernible by its height. And that which we required in the previous section a width of four tefachim, this was not for the essence of the fence but for the significance of leaving him four amot for passage, as was written. Therefore, with a fence ten tefachim high and a trench ten tefachim deep and its width is four tefachim, it is permitted to plant a vineyard on its side from here and vegetables on its side from here. And even a partition of reeds is sufficient, and even if the reeds do not stand consecutive to one another, if they are only less than three tefachim from one to the other, it is a partition; for it is a law given to Moses at Sinai that less than three is considered lavud regarding Shabbat and kilayim.

A fence that separates between a vineyard and vegetables that was breached up to ten amot, this is like an opening as in the laws of Shabbat, and it is permitted to place them adjacent to one another even opposite the opening, for the opening is like the fence itself, since everyone sees that this is an opening and there is a distinction. If it was breached more than ten, opposite the breach it is forbidden until he distances from the vines according to the measure, which is four amot, and opposite the standing part it is permitted. If many breaches were made in it and none were more than ten, if in its entirety the standing part was equal to the breached part, this is permitted as if there is no breach there, and it is permitted to sow even near the breaches, for we maintain that "breached like standing" is like "standing greater than breached." But if the breached part was greater than the standing part, he shall not sow opposite all the breached places until he distances according to the measure. Thus the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch ruled there.

The Rambam, of blessed memory, wrote in the second chapter of Hilchot Tzitzit: How is the tekhelet dyed? One takes the blood of the hilazon, which is a fish found in the Salt Sea, and its color is like the color of the sea, and its blood is black like ink, and it is found in the Great Sea. This is his wording: And one puts the blood into a pot and boils it, and brings the wool and puts it into it until it becomes the color of the sky, and this is the tekhelet mentioned in the tzitzit. Thus far his words. And see there that he wrote: The tekhelet mentioned in the Torah everywhere is wool dyed with the hilazon, and it is a known dye that retains its beauty and does not change. See there. And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, brought this in siman 11. And our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 1: And now we have only white, for the tekhelet has been hidden. Thus far his words.

And I am astonished, for in Eruvin (15b) and in the Tosefta of Kilayim (4:4) it is explained that this is specifically when each standing part has at least four tefachim; but from three to four, it is explicitly stated there that if the breached part was greater than the standing part, even opposite the standing part it is forbidden, because less than four is not significant enough to be called "standing," see there. And why did they not explain this? And so it is in the Yerushalmi, chapter 4, end of halacha 2, see there. And it appears to me that it is because in the Yerushalmi there it is stated afterward: Rabbi Yudan bar Pazi in the name of Rabbi Yochanan, there is no "from three to four" here, etc., see there. That is to say, that this clause of "from three to four" must be removed from this Tosefta. Therefore, even though in Eruvin there it is not explicitly stated so, the Rambam holds that the Shas in Eruvin brought the Baraita incidentally to the matters of Shabbat, and therefore he was not concerned with it. This is not the case with the Yerushalmi of Kilayim; since it stated so, such is the halacha (as appears in my humble opinion) (and according to the Griva, Rava there also holds so, and see the Rash, and it requires further study).

I am further astonished by this, for behold, in the Tosefta at the beginning of chapter 4 it is taught: Rabban Gamliel and his beit din ordained that one must distance four amot from the base of the vines to the fence, see there. And the Rambam wrote in the Commentary on the Mishnah (chapter 4, mishnah 3), and this is his wording: The fence that separates between the vineyard and another area, so that one may place the seed on the side of this fence from here etc., for the fence shall separate between them; but they said in the Gemara: Rabban Gamliel and his beit din ordained that they should distance four amot from the vines to the fence. Thus far his words. And if so, why did he not rule accordingly in his composition? And it is true that regarding what he wrote, "they said in the Gemara," I have found this neither in the Yerushalmi nor in the Bavli, but in any event it is in the Tosefta. And it must be said that he retracted this in his composition, for in truth, what is this phrasing "from the base of the vines to the fence"? Therefore, perhaps he interpreted it regarding another matter, namely that which was explained in section 62, that in a small vineyard it has no mecholel, only that he distances four amot, see there, and this is from the ordinance of Rabban Gamliel. (The Gra emended: "from the base of the vines to the field," and it requires further study, for behold, this is from the essential law because of the cultivation of the vineyard, and the words of the commentator are astonishing, see there and examine carefully).

Furthermore, I wonder, for in the Tosefta there it is taught: Any partition that is made of warp and is not made of woof, or woof and is not made of warp, this is a partition; Rabbi Yose son of Rabbi Yehuda says it is not a partition, etc. And certainly the halacha is like the first Tanna, for also regarding the matter of Shabbat we learned in Eruvin (16b) so, and the Rambam ruled in chapter 16 of Shabbat, law 18, that it is a partition, see there. And why did he not mention this here? And it must be said that he relied on what he ruled in the laws of Shabbat, and it requires further study. And I wonder even more, for in Eruvin (11a) we say: It happened that a certain man fixed four poles in the four corners of a field and stretched a vine branch over them, and the case came before the sages and they permitted it regarding the matter of kilayim, for its law is like a fence, see there in the commentary of Rashi. And the conclusion of the Gemara there is that with more than ten, the permission is only when the tzurat hapetach is on top of them and not from the side, and with less than ten even from the side it is permitted, see there. And why did the Rambam not mention anything of all this? And it requires great further study.

The partition of a vineyard that was breached, one says to the owner of the vineyard: "Fence it." If it was breached again, one says to him: "Fence it." If he despaired of it and did not fence it, behold, this has become sanctified. And specifically if he despaired, but if he did not despair and is occupied with fencing it, even though in the meantime it increased by a two-hundredth part, it is permitted (Tosafot Bava Kamma 100b, s.v. "netya'esh"), since it is not pleasing to him, as it is written: "You shall not sow your vineyard," implying a sowing that is pleasing to him (ibid.). And he is also liable for the responsibility of the seeds if the seeds belong to others, because the owner of the vineyard is considered like a damager, and this is like his own arrows (ibid. s.v. "omer"). And specifically when they warned him, as is clear from the language "one says to him: 'Fence it,'" but when they did not warn him, he does not need to pay (ibid.). And also a second time they must warn him, and if it was breached a third time, there is a doubt if they must warn him (ibid.), and the burden of proof rests on the claimant. And this is considered a visible damage, for behold, it is visible that it is kilayim when one sees kilayim (ibid. s.v. "chayav"). And he is liable to pay by the law of garmi, as I wrote in Choshen Mishpat siman 386, section 3, see there (and we have already wondered there about the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch who omitted this point that he is liable for its responsibility, and it requires further study).

A house that is half roofed and half not roofed, and vines are planted on this side, it is permitted to sow vegetables on the other side, for the edge of the ceiling is considered as if it descends and closes, and also regarding the matter of Shabbat it is so, and it is like a mechitzah. And if he leveled its roofing, meaning that he roofed all of it, the "edge of the ceiling" is removed and it is forbidden if he left the seeds from the time he leveled it until it added one two-hundredth. And know that we do not say the edge of the ceiling descends and closes at a corner, nor with a sloped roof, nor when there are not four tefachim in the roofing, as is explained in Orach Chaim siman 361, see there. and presumably the same law applies regarding the matter of kilayim, for it implies so in Eruvin (93a) which compares these to one another. However, regarding this matter it appears there is a distinction, for regarding Shabbat we only say "the edge of the ceiling" with one mechitzah according to Shmuel there, but regarding kilayim we say it even with four mechitzot, for we have permitted regarding the matter of kilayim a tzurat hapetach with four mechitzot as I wrote in section 69 (Tosafot ibid. s.v. "chatzyo").

We say in Eruvin (92b) that a small courtyard that was breached in its entirety into a large one—meaning that for the small one no side-posts remained from here or from there, but for the large one side-posts remained—we hold that the residents of the large one are in the small one, but the residents of the small one are not in the large one. That is to say, the large one governs the small one and pulls it toward itself, and it is as if the entire small one is inside the large one, but not vice versa. Therefore, if there were vines in the large one, it is forbidden to sow in the small one even with distancing, and if one sowed, the seeds are forbidden, for the vines are considered as standing next to them. But the vines are permitted, for regarding them the seeds are not considered as sown next to them, since they have side-posts from here and from there, and the entirety of the small one is considered like an entrance regarding the large one; and this is when its entirety is not more than ten. But vice versa, if vines are in the small one, it is permitted to sow the large one ab initio, for the vines that are in the small one do not forbid the seeds that are in the large one, and even when the seeds grow they will not forbid the vines. And the reason is because the name of the large one is upon the small one; therefore, when the vines are in the large one, the name "vineyard" is also upon the small one, but the name of the small one is not upon the large one, and the name "vineyard" is not upon the large one when the vines are in the small one. And if it is because the name "field" is upon the small one, yet the Torah was only particular regarding the name "vineyard," as it is written: "You shall not sow your vineyard with kilayim," and it is not written: "your field you shall not plant as a vineyard" (Tosafot ibid.).

A trench that passes through a vineyard, ten tefachim deep and four tefachim wide, if it was perforated from the beginning of the vineyard until its end, it appears as if it is between two vineyards, and it is permitted to sow within it, provided that the vines do not overhang it. And if it was not perforated, it is like a winepress in the middle of a vineyard, for even though it is ten deep and four wide or more, it serves the vineyard, and it is forbidden for him to sow within it unless there was a karachat of sixteen amot, as in section 54. And a path between two vineyards, its law is also like a vineyard that was destroyed in its middle, which is a karachat of the vineyard; if there are sixteen amot in it, he distances four amot from this one and four amot from that one, and sows the remainder. And if it was less than this, he shall not bring seed there, as I have written there regarding the law of a karachat of the vineyard.

We learned in chapter 5 (mishnah 3): A shomirah in a vineyard—which is a high mound upon which the watchman stands to guard the vineyard and sees into the distance (the Rash and the Shimshon and the Bartenura, and the explanation in the Shulchan Aruch section 52 is an error)—ten high and four wide, one may sow inside it, meaning on top of it. And as the Rambam wrote there in law 22, this is his wording: One may sow vegetables on its top, provided that the tendrils do not touch it. And it is not similar to a winepress in a vineyard, where the airspace of the vineyard surrounds it and therefore it is forbidden, but a shomirah is high and the airspace of the vineyard does not surround it (Bartenura). And the Rambam wrote: In what case does this apply? In a square one, but if the shomirah was round, it must have a hollow space of four tefachim inside it so that it will be distinct from the ground, and it requires three tefachim of earth on its top from above. Thus far his words. And in the Shulchan Aruch it is in section 52, and this is from the Yerushalmi there, see there. And the commentator explained that it deals with exactly four wide, and therefore in a square this is sufficient, but in a circle the corners are diminished, see there. And it does not seem clear to me at all, for if so, he should have said that in a circle one needs more width according to what would emerge from a square of four tefachim, as with a beehive in the first chapter of Shabbat, see there. And furthermore, what is this language of "a hollow space of four tefachim"? And it appears to me that this is the explanation: that a square appears like a building and is a domain unto itself, but a circle appears like a mere tree, and even if it is very wide it is not effective and is nullified relative to the vineyard. However, if it has a hollow space of four tefachim inside it and three tefachim of earth on top of it, it has significance and is not nullified to the vineyard, and one may sow upon it. And the main point is that for a circle one needs a greater distinction and not for a square, because there is no square from the six days of creation, and it is recognizable to all that it is man-made, which is not the case with a round thing, as is explained in the Yerushalmi.

A house that is in a vineyard: if it was more than three tefachim by three tefachim, one may sow vegetables within it; and if it was less than three by three, it is as if it were closed up and one may not sow within it. This is the wording in the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch there. And what the law is regarding exactly three, they did not clarify. However, from the Yerushalmi it is clear that it is like more than three, see there (Chapter 5, end of Halacha 3). And it says there: from three until four, one completes four and sows immediately; meaning that when it is less than four tefachim, one should not sow adjacent to the vines within four tefachim even inside the house, but rather it must be at least four tefachim distant. And this requires further study, for they did not cite this.

A single vine that was planted within a valley or within a trench, one distances from it six tefachim in every direction and sows the entire trench in the manner that he does in a level place. But when the trench is ten deep and the lip of the trench above is four wide, meaning that the space is four wide and it is found to be like a reshut hayachid ten deep and four wide, it is forbidden to sow within it even though he distanced six tefachim, for it is as if he designated the entire trench for this vine for its cultivation since it is a separate domain. And so too regarding height, for example, a single vine that was surrounded by a fence ten tefachim high and four wide, he shall not sow within the entire partition even though he distanced six tefachim. And post facto, if he distanced six tefachim and sowed, it is not sanctified, for according to the essential Torah law six tefachim is sufficient, but they forbade it ab initio. And how much is the limit, whether in a trench or in a fence, such that he shall not sow ab initio in the entire trench or the entire fence? Four amot in every direction like the cultivation of a vineyard, for it is no better than a complete vineyard in a level place; and beyond four amot it is permitted to sow the entire trench or the entire fence.

Know that in the sixth chapter of Kilayim, our holy teacher taught us several mishnayot regarding the law of an aris and the interruptions of an aris, and in them are more stringent laws than ordinary plantings of vines, for even one row is called a kerem. It is necessary to explain the matter, and the Rambam explained it at the beginning of the eighth chapter. This is his wording: Vines that grew according to their natural state, such that their branches and clusters are cast upon the ground, are those called a kerem. But one who makes something like a bed or like a lattice high above the ground so that the clusters and branches will be drawn over it, and he raised the foliage of the vines above the ground onto that bed and trained them, this is called an aris. And those reeds and the like from which he made a bed or lattice and trained the foliage of the vine upon them are those called apipirot, and there are other laws regarding an aris.

How so? One who plants a single row of five vines or more and trained them over a wall ten high or the like, or who planted them beside a trench ten deep and four wide, these are called an aris, and one must distance four amot from the aris just as with an ordinary kerem of two rows, because an aris has greater importance; and after the four amot it is permitted to sow. And from where does he measure the four amot? From the base of the wall upon which he trained them.

The Rambam wrote there in law 3, and in the Shulchan Aruch section 58: How? If he distanced the row of vines from the wall by one amah, and the aris is found to be from the vines to the wall, he measures four amot from the wall and sows, and it is found that between the seed and the roots of the vines are five amot. And if he comes to sow from the side of the vines, he distances four amot from the roots of the vines, so that it is found to be five amot distant from the wall, and in this manner they judge regarding every aris. Thus far his words. And the Ra'avad disagreed with him, for how is it possible to require distancing from behind the wall, given that the wall intervenes? And the distancing is only toward the side of the vines; on the contrary, it is a leniency when they measure four amot from the fence, such as where from the fence to the vines is two amot, he only needs to distance two amot from the vines according to Beit Hillel, who hold thus in the Mishnah regarding aris, see there. And in truth, this depends on variant versions in the Yerushalmi (see Kesef Mishneh). However, I do not understand according to the opinion of the Ra'avad how it is possible not to require four amot from the roots of the vines, for the reason is due to the cultivation of the vineyard, and this is from the roots of the vines. And it must be said that he holds that since the branches are laid upon the aris, which is the fence, he does not need four amot from the roots of the vines for cultivation, only from the fence. And know that fence and wall are one and the same, and sometimes they call it a fence and sometimes a wall, and the aris extends until there.

There is no distinction in the law of an aris between whether one built the fence and afterward planted, or whether one planted and afterward built the fence; since he trellised them, this is an aris. We do not say it is specifically when he planted and afterward made the fence for the purpose of an aris, for this depends on the primary action and not on the intention. If the fence was destroyed or the trench was filled in and they remained lying on the ground, the status of aris is nullified from it, and the entire row is like individual vines which do not require a distancing of more than six tefachim. It is obvious that if there were previously two rows, it is a kerem even with the falling of the aris, for even without it, it is a kerem with two rows and requires a distancing of four amot (and this is not a contradiction to what I wrote in section 84, and examine this closely).

The Rambam wrote there in Law 5, and in the Shulchan Aruch section 60: An aris whose middle was destroyed and five vines remained on the side of the fence from here and five vines on the side of the other fence opposite them, this is what is called piskei aris. If there are eight cubits and one-sixtieth of a cubit between them, he distances six tefachim from each row and sows, provided that he does not sow under the trellis. If there were exactly eight cubits between them, he shall not sow there, and if he sowed, since he distanced six tefachim from each row, he did not cause kideish. And if there is no fence there, he distances six tefachim from each row and sows, for there is neither an aris nor piskei aris here. If he went back and built the fence, the aris returned to its place and the piskei aris returned to their place. Thus far his words.

The explanation of his words is that even though it was initially called an aris with five vines, nevertheless, if there were many vines and they were destroyed in the middle, even though five vines remained from here and five from here, they are not called two arisim, but rather the remnants of an aris, and the status of aris is nullified from it since he initially made the aris for many vines. And a separation of eight amot and a bit is sufficient. According to the Rambam, the "bit" is one-sixtieth of an amah, and the Rash reads one-sixth of an amah, which is a tefach, and such is the opinion of the Ra'avad. This depends on the variant readings in the Yerushalmi. And it appears to me that the reason they required slightly more than eight amot is because in the initial planting of a vineyard, the separation is eight amot, as has been explained; therefore, they distinguished it by a small amount from there in order to know that this is from the laws of aris. Therefore, post facto, it does not sanctify even if the "bit" was not present. The Ra'avad disagrees with this and holds that since five vines remained on each side, they are now two arisim. And in Mishnah 6, Chapter 6, it is explained according to the Rambam; see there.

The Rambam wrote there, law 7: A small garden that is surrounded by a fence, and one made an aris for the vines around it from the outside upon all its walls—if there is within it the space of a grape-gatherer and his basket from here and a grape-gatherer and his basket from here, since it is surrounded by a fence, one may sow vegetables within it. But if there is not this measure within it, one may not sow within it, because it all appears as one aris with vegetables inside it. Thus far his words. And in the Shulchan Aruch it is in section 61, and it is a Mishnah in Eduyot chapter 2 (mishnah 4). And it requires explanation, and we will explain it with the help of Heaven.

Know that all the mishnayot of Eduyot consist of that which the Tannaim testified regarding novel laws, and here too it is so, to tell you that even though this is ostensibly a literal aris and the distancing should be four amot as has been written, nevertheless this is not called an aris. The reason is that certainly if this fence were for the sake of the vines, whether he made it beforehand or afterward, it would be an aris. But here the fence is for the sake of the garden; even incidentally, since he planted vines around it from the outside, he formed an aris for the vines upon its walls, and this was not for the intention of an aris. Therefore, in a single row, they only have the law of an individual vine, where one distances six tefachim and sows. Nevertheless, the sages said that if the garden is four amot by four amot, in a manner that when they leave on each side the space for the harvester and his basket, which are two amot—for he harvests the grapes and places them into the basket, and the place of the harvester is an amah, as a man sits in an amah, and the place of the basket is an amah, and from two sides it is four amot—then he shall distance the seed from the place of the vines six tefachim like an individual vine and sow, and we do not care if he sows in the place of the basket. But less than this measure, it all appears as one aris and it is forbidden to sow in it. And it appears to me that if he sowed, he did not sanctify. And behold, according to the Rambam the vines are on the other side of the fence, but according to the Ra'avad in section 79 the vines are inside the fence around the fence. And according to the Rambam it is better understood, for according to the Ra'avad, since there are vines inside the fence, who is to say he made the fence for the garden? Perhaps he made it for the vines and it is a literal aris. However, one could say that since its essence is a garden, it is evident that it was made for the sake of a garden (I learned the explanation from the Commentary on the Mishnah of the Rambam and the Ra'avad there, and the commentary of the Bartenura, and see Tosafot Yom Tov there, and examine it closely).

Vines that were planted on a high terrace, meaning a high mound made in the form of a terrace (Bartenura, chapter 6, mishnah 2), and there are those who make a trench around the towers and pour soil above to raise the mound and make it into several terraces (the Rash, ibid.), and their aris extends and overhangs the field—if it is not so high, meaning that one stands on the ground and harvests all the vines, we view all the ground beneath the aris as if it were the place of the roots of the vines, and it forbids four amot in the field in every direction from the edge of the aris. And even though in every aris one measures the four amot either from the fence or from the roots of the vines according to the Rambam, and according to the Ra'avad only from the roots of the vines and not from the ground beneath the aris, nevertheless here, since the vine itself is high and the aris extends over the field, the ground beneath the aris is considered like a fence and like the root of the vine, since it is divided from the root in height and depth. However, if the vines are so high that he cannot harvest unless he ascends the terrace or a ladder, it is only forbidden to sow beneath the aris alone, but one does not need to distance four amot from the ground beneath the end of the aris. For since the vine itself is very high indeed, the status of a vineyard does not apply at all to the ground beneath the aris, and therefore only directly beneath it is it forbidden due to mixing.

We learned in a Mishnah in chapter 6 (mishnah 7): An aris that extends from the wall from within the corner and ends, they give it its tillage area and one sows the remainder. The Rash and the Bartenura explained: for example, five vines planted alongside a fence that do not occupy the entire fence, but rather three are at the head of the corner on this side and two are at the head of the second corner on that side, and in the middle of the wall there are no vines, but rather they stand in the two corners of the wall. Therefore, their law is like an individual vine, and one distances six tefachim from here and from there and sows the rest of the wall, even if the length of the wall is not four amot; for it is not called an aris unless it is on one side, and not part of it on this side and part of it on the other side.

But the Rambam explains a different explanation, and according to his explanation he ruled here in law 9 and in the Shulchan Aruch section 63. This is his wording: Two walls adjacent to one another and the vines are planted in the corner between them, and the aris extends with the walls from the corner and ends; he distances from the roots of the vines the required measure (four cubits) and sows in the place of the ending that does not have an aris over it. And even though the seed is aligned with the two walls between which the aris is located, since he distanced the required measure, he may sow between the walls. Thus far his words. And the novelty is that even though it appears as one actual place because it is between two walls, nevertheless, since he distanced the required measure, it is sufficient for him (and in the Yerushalmi it says it must be like a corner of an angle, see there).

A vine whose trunk rose slightly from the ground straight and afterwards became bent and drawn toward the ground, such that it did not go upward but rather in a curvature toward the ground like a person whose knee is bent, and after it was drawn toward the ground for some distance it returned and rose upward (it appears to me that it is similar to the letter Lamed of the Ashurit script, and in the Shulchan Aruch section 64 it is recorded as similar to a Nun, but this is not clear); when one measures between the seed and the vine four cubit or six handbreadths, one only measures from the end of the "knee" and not from the first trunk of the vine, because according to the appearance of the eye, the trunk of the vine begins from there. This is as we learned at the beginning of chapter 7: Regarding the "knee" in a vine, one only measures for it from the second trunk, see there. And this is a stringency. However, the Rash explained there that the intention is that one grafted a shoot of a vine into another vine, and the lower one is very thick and the grafted one is thin, and one only measures from the grafted one, and that is from the thin part, and this is a leniency. (And that which it says in the Yerushalmi that these words apply when the first is not visible, but if the first is visible one gives six handbreadths from the first—according to the Rash it refers to this law as he wrote there, and according to the Rambam it does not refer to this law but only to the first clause, see there in the Pe'at HaShulchan, and examine carefully).

It has already been explained that even though he distances between the seed and the vine according to the measure, he must be careful that the vine does not overhang the vegetable or the vegetable over the vine. And if he sowed a vegetable or grain and it grew, and afterwards he overhung the vine over it, the stalks are permitted and the grain must be burned. And that which was explained above, that even the stalks are forbidden, refers to when he sowed the kilayim under the vine. And so it is in the Yerushalmi at the end of chapter 5, and this is its wording: Sometimes the stalks are permitted, etc. He sowed in a permitted manner and it overhung them, the stalks are permitted and the grain is forbidden, etc. See there. And if the roots of the vine were extending into the four amot that are between the vineyard and the grain, he must uproot them. And if the roots of the grain were extending into the four amot, it is permitted, because the roots of grain do not spread as much as the roots of a vine, and if he does not uproot them, they will mix together. And all the distances and measures mentioned regarding kilayim are with an amah of six expansive tefachim and not exact. And all the measures apply in Eretz Yisrael, but in Chutz La'aretz it is permitted to sow alongside the vines ab initio, because in Chutz La'aretz it is rabbinic, and it has already been explained at the beginning of the siman.