תלמוד על כלאים 4:2

One assumes that⁹כילו is a contracted form of כְּאִילּוּ. another [vine] was planted there, for all four sides¹⁰Since R. Zeïra explains the Mishnah according to R. Joḥanan, one has to follow the latter’s opinion in Halakhah 4:6 that the area covered by a minimal vineyard is not the trapezoid defined by the segments containing, respectively, two and three vines, but the smallest rectangle containing the trapezoid, adding an imaginary third vine in the second row. In our case, one cannot actually have these vines added, because that would immediately generate three rows of three vines each, which define a large vineyard for which the rule of tail does not apply. Then the question arises of how to compute the area of the remaining vineyard. This will be dealt with in the next paragraph where it is shown that one cannot have exactly a bet seah(2500 square cubits) as required by the Mishnah unless one reduces the distances between the vines.. One cannot actually plant on any of the four sides because it would form a tail and there is no tail for a tail. This implies that there is no tail for a large vineyard, which gives a simple answer to the question of Rebbi Yose ben Zabida in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: one considers as if another [vine] was planted there¹¹In Halakhah 4:6, R. Yose bar Zemina in the name of R. Joḥanan had a statement, about which R. Jonah asked whether minimal vineyards can be combined to form a large vineyard. The answer given here is that one does not add the imaginary vines to form a theoretical large vineyard..

HALAKHAH: Does this not disagree with Rebbi Zeïra since Rebbi Zeïra said⁵³Halakhah 4:8, speaking of the parallel rules for vineyards., eight except for the place of the trunks? Explain that as eight cubits and a little more⁵⁴Less than a hand-breadth. As explained here, the minimal length of which formal congnizance is taken is a hand-breadth, one sixth of a cubit; smaller distances are not enumerated in the Mishnah. If the Mishnah (Eruvin1:3, Ahilut 12:6) states that the circumference of a circle of diameter 1 is 3 it means that 3 ≤ π ≤ ¹⁹/₆ (3 ≤ π ≤ ¹⁶/₅).. And why has this not been stated? Are you not concurring with Rebbi Joḥanan that in all linear measurements stated by the Sages, “more than” means [more by] a hand-breadth⁵⁵The Tosephta (Kilaim 4:9) explains: כמה הוא ועוד אחד מששה טפחים באמה. “How much is ‘more than’? One of six hand-breadths per cubit.” The correct interpretation has been given by R. S. Lieberman: In Tosephta Kelim,Baba Meẓia‘ 6:13, R. Meïr declares the cubits used in a vineyard to be cubits of five hand-breadths (cf. Chapter 5, Note 27). The Tosephta here redefines the hand-breadth to be added as one new hand-breadth, when 6 new hand-breadths are 5 common hand-breadths or one vine cubit. According to the Tosephta, “more than” means at least ⅚ of a common cubit. This Tosephta text is in the manuscript and the editio princeps. R. Isaac Simponti, R. Simson and R. Abraham ben David read “one sixth of a cubit”, leaving open the possibility that hand-breadth and cubit are the standard ones. Maimonides has another reading, “1/60 cubit”, supported by Caphtor Waperaḥ and R. Bezalel Ashkenazi. However, as R. Abraham ben David points out, such a text would contradict the Yerushalmi here; the length added by R. Zeïra is certainly more than a tenth of a hand-breadth.? But what he added is little, therefore it was not stated.