Talmud for Kilayim 3:1

כרישים כרישי שדה. כוסבר כיסבר שדה. חרדל וחרדל מצרי ודלעת מצרית <והרומצא> [והרמוצא] ופול המצרי וחרוב אינן כלאים זה בזה:

a creative task, he should bring a sin offering. Two--he should bring a conditional sin offering. Three--he is exempt [from bringing a sacrifice of any sort.]” Rabbi Yose bar Bon raised the question [thus]: “If you were to say that two [stars indicate] doubt [as to whether it is day or night, then] if one saw two stars on the eve of the Sabbath and [others] warned him [that it was the Sabbath, thus making him liable for its violation], yet he [nonetheless] performed a creative task; [and if he subsequently] saw two stars on the departure of the Sabbath and [others] warned him [that it was still the Sabbath], yet he performed a creative task; then either way you like [he is liable for a violation of the Sabbath]. If the first [set of stars] were [an indication that it was still] daytime [and not yet the Sabbath], then the last stars were also [an indication that it was still] daytime [and still the Sabbath], then he is liable [for a violation of the Sabbath] on account of the last set [of stars]. If the last [set of stars] were [an indication that it was now] night time [and the Sabbath had begun], then the first stars were also [an indication that it was now] night time [and no longer the Sabbath], then he is liable [for a violation of the Sabbath] on account of the first set [of stars]. [Another example:] If he saw two stars on the eve of the Sabbath and partially harvested a fig, [and] if he [subsequently returned] in the morning and harvested another part, and if he saw two stars on the departure of the Sabbath and harvested the [last] part of the fig, then either way you like [he is liable for a sin offering]. If the first [set of stars] were [an indication that it was still] daytime [and not yet the Sabbath], then the last stars were also [an indication that it was still] daytime [and still the Sabbath] and the morning harvest joins with that of the departure of the sabbath, and he is liable [for a sin offering] on account of the last set [of stars]. If the last [set of stars] were [an indication that it was] night time [and now the Sabbath], then the last stars were also [an indication that it was] daytime [and no longer the Sabbath] and the morning harvest joins with that of the night of the Sabbath, and he is liable [for a sin offering] on account of the first set [of stars].” These [stars] that you are speaking of are [only] those whose way is not to appear in the daytime. However, we do not count those whose way is to appear in the daytime. Rabbi Yose bar Bon said: “Just so long as three stars may be seen aside from that [one we call] Kokhvata (prob. Venus).” (This may be a scribal error and the original version may have been: “Just so long as three stars may be seen [in one place, just] as one star [can be so seen.]”) Rabbi Yaakov of Romana in the name of Rabbi Yehuda ben Pazi: “One star, surely day. Two, night.” But does he [truly] have no [time period of] doubt!? He has doubt about [discerning] one star from another. A baraita teaches: “So long as the eastern horizon is reddened, it is daytime.

Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim

Rebbi Yosa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: All of these form pairs. Has that been said for the entire Chapter, or only for this Halakhah? From what Rav said, that the five vegetables with which one may satisfy one’s obligation at Passover time can all be sown in one vegetable bed²⁶The five vegetables which may be used for bitter herbs on Passover are enumerated in Mishnah Pesaḥim2:5; cf. the author’s The Scholar’s Haggadah, pp. 332–333. The parallel discussion to the one given here is in Babli Pesaḥim 39a, also in the name of Rav. The statement of Rav was understood to mean that the five kinds may be sown together., and one says that the statement of Rav disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan²⁷Since some of the bitter herbs are mentioned in Mishnah 2, dividing them into groups seems to contradict the opinion of Rav., it follows that it has been said for the entire Chapter. Rav Abba in the name of Rav: All²⁸Referring to the Chapter here, identical with the previous statement of R. Joḥanan that only pairs of plants enumerated with a connecting ו may be planted together. have been stated in pairs. The reasoning of Rav is inverted; there he says that they all constitute one kind, and here, he says so? No, Rav did not say that they all constitute one kind, but rather that they all are kinds of vegetables that may be sown in one vegetable bed²⁹In Mishnah 3:1 it will be stated that in planting vegetable beds one may not mix vegetables but one may plant different kinds so that they almost touch at corners, whereas grain and legume fields need much greater distances between different crops. All Rav wanted to state was that they can be sown under the lenient rules for vegetable beds, for intensive cultivation, in contrast to produce that can only be sown in fields, for extensive cultivation. Rav did not mean to say that they all were one kind..

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim

Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Zeïra and Rebbi Immi, both in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, one said one plants near a fence but not near a border wall⁵⁴However, everybody agrees that one may sow דאש תור under all circumstances. This shows that the explanation of Maimonides in Mishnah 3:1, using a diamond-shaped field in the center עדוגה, is consistent with the Halakhah here, while R. Obadiah of Bertinoro’s explanation of the position of R. Jehudah is not.
The statement means that one may sow close to the fence on both sides of the fence, even if the thickness of the fence is less than 1.5 hand-breadths, but sowing near a border wall that is 1 hand-breadth high requires one to leave half a hand-breadth empty in the עדוגה or on top of the wall adjacent to the ערוגה, for a total separation of 1.5 hand-breadths., and the other said, a border wall which lost height is in order, hence a fence which lost height is invalid. But we do not know who said what. Since Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One plants near a fence but not near a border wall, this means Rebbi Immi is the one who said that a border wall that lost height is in order, hence a fence which lost height is invalid. Rebbi Yose said, we also did make both statements, that a border wall that lost height is in order, hence a fence that lost height⁵⁵To less than 10 hand-breadths, unless the fence itself was 1.5 hand-breadths wide. is invalid. One plants near a fence, as we have stated (Mishnah 2:8): “One does sow close to a fallow field, a plowed field, a stone wall, a foot path, a fence ten hand-breadths high.” One does not plant near a border wall, as we have stated (Mishnah 3:2): “In a furrow or a water canal that are one hand-breadth deep one may sow three kinds of seeds, one on each side and one in the middle.” If you say that one may sow close to a border wall, he should sow several rows down in the ditch. The colleagues said before Rebbi Samuel bar Abin: Explain it if the top of the border wall was sown⁵⁶One may not sow parallel to it in the ditch unless the total distance was 1.5 hand-breadths. But a single seed acts as דאש תור and is permitted.. He said to them, if it is so, let him uproot that stem and sow several rows down in the ditch. Is it not better to uproot one stem and sow several rows down in the ditch?

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim

We have stated the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah here, and we have stated it there⁷³In Mishnah 3:1, where the rabbis permit only five kinds in a garden bed but Rebbi Jehudah permits six.. If it had been stated here but not there, we would have said that just as Rebbi Jehudah who is restrictive here⁷⁴Rebbi Jehudah requires a full hand-breadth of empty space as walkway between the two parts of the field. The rabbis require less, according to the argument here. The problem is that the rabbis are not mentioned here, nor are they in any parallel Tosephta. By the rules of decision accepted in the Babli, practice follows R. Aqiba against any one of his colleagues. If we accept this here, then the explanation of R. Aqiba’s statement in the Mishnah must follow Maimonides and the opinion of R. Simson becomes unacceptable! There is no indication that the Yerushalmi accepts that rule; in addition, R. Aqiba here disagrees with two of his colleagues, so that there is a two to one majority which rejects his position. We must assume that in the opinion of the Yerushalmi, the rabbis will be ready to accept any furrow as separation, without prescribing any minimal width. is permissive there, the rabbis who are permissive here certainly will be permissive there. Hence, it is necessary to state there. Or if it was stated there but not here, we would have said that just as the rabbis who are restrictive there are permissive here, Rebbi Jehudah who is permissive there certainly will be permissive here. Hence, it is necessary to state both here and there.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Peah

Available for Premium members only

Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim

Available for Premium members only

Full Chapter Next Verse