Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

And thus the vines on the corners are permitted.

The Rambam derives these concepts from an analysis of the wording of Kilayim 5:5. To explain: The Mishnah states: “[A person who] plants a vegetable in a vineyard... causes 45 vines to be hallowed. When? When they are planted, each one four [cubits from the other] or five [cubits from each other].” As the Rambam explains in his Commentary to the Mishnah, if the vines are five cubits away from each other, some of the 45 vines will be outside the circle. Now, it’s true, that if the vines are four cubits away from each other, there will be individual vines within four cubits of the circle. There will not, however, be “rows of the vines” outside the circle.
The Ra’avad differs with his interpretation. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh support the Rambam’s view.

Since the prooftext cited above speaks of”the vineyard” becoming hallowed, the area that becomes hallowed must be at least two rows wide, for only that is worthy of being called “a vineyard” [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Kilayim 4:5)]. The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s ruling, but the Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh question his objection.
The Kessef Mishneh also clarifies that here a smaller portion of the vineyard is forbidden than in the previous halachah, because the mixed species is not surrounded by the vineyard on all sides. Hence, only four cubits, the area necessary to perform the work necessary for the vineyard, is forbidden.

The Radbaz adds that if one sows the vegetables or grain beyond the row of the vineyard, a four cubit portion of that area is also forbidden.

For this is the size of the area necessary to tend to a single vine (Kilayim 6:1).

This applies regardless of the species of crops sown there (in contrast to the opinion of Rashi, Sotah 43b) [Kessef Mishneh].

I.e., because the plants are small, planting them is not considered planting a “vineyard.”

See Chapter 7, Halachah 7, which describes vines planted in this manner as “a small vineyard.” (See diagram on following page).

For this indicates that this person considers this as a vineyard; alternatively this is a Rabbinic safeguard, lest an observer think that planting other species is permissible in an ordinary vineyard (Radbaz). Diagram

This refers to a terraced hill with gardens planted on an incline (Radbaz)

The notes to the Frankel edition of the Mishneh Torah cite Hilchot Shabbat 4:4, 18 which speaks about the significance of ten handbreadths of space.

From the ruling in Chapter 2, Halachah 13, it would appear that he should also wait until the seeds rot (Tosafot Yom Tov).

The Radbaz states that following this course of action will be beneficial, for pulling out the vines will save him the trouble of having to cover the seeds with earth, for that task will be accomplished as a matter of course.

The Rambam is referring to a process which was used to extend a vine and increase its fertility. For if a vine was allowed to grow endlessly, its fertility would wane as it grew longer. Therefore its head was implanted in the ground. There it would grow roots - thus increasing the nurture it could give the plant - and then from the embedded head would sprout forth a new plant.

If the gourd is not dried out, it is certainly forbidden, because the gourd itself is a separate species.

Since as the vine's roots grow, they will emerge from the sides of these cylinders, they are considered as subservient to the earth and not as independent entity. If the person places the vine in a metal pipe, these laws do not apply.

Since it is buried so deeply in the earth, it is no longer considered significant.

Because the amount of earth over it is not that much to cause it to be considered as insignificant.

Were it above ground, by contrast, one would have to move six handbreadths away before sowing a crop.

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Kilayim 7:2).

For its roots will not emerge.

This applies to the previous halachah as well.

The notes to the Frankel edition of the Mishneh Torah mention that this ruling appears to be somewhat of a departure from the Rambam’s understanding as reflected in his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.).

Chapter 7, Halachah l.

When vines are this distance apart they are still considered as part of the same vineyard (Chapter 7, Halachah 2).

The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that this law applies even if there are no other vines. He maintains that since a portion of the vines extended in the ground is visible, they themselves can be grouped together and considered a vineyard, because the three bases and the three heads are considered as six vines. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh justify the Rambam’s ruling. They do not dispute the law mentioned by the Ra’avad, but maintain that it is not the interpretation of the mishnah cited above. (Significantly, the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah appears to follow the Ra’avad’s approach.)

The Rambam derives this law from the fact that the mishnah cited above speaks of “three vines.” Implied is that the law does not apply to less.

As stated in Halachah 8.

I.e., even though the branch is only an extension of the vine, sowing under it is forbidden. See Halachah 15.

See Chapter 8, Halachah 1, for a description of such trellises.

I.e., a person prepared a series of trellises over which to drape a vine. In fact, however, he did not drape the vine over the entire area of the trellises, only over a portion of it. He should, nevertheless, be stringent and regard the vine as growing over the entire trellis, because ultimately, it will spread over it.

The rationale is that they are placed there so that ultimately, the vine will grow and be extended upon them.

For unless the vine spreads there, the prohibition is merely a Rabbinic safeguard.

I.e., it forbidden to sow crops under the entire tree. The produce becomes hallowed, however, only when sowed under the area where the vine is actually draped.

Since it is a fruit tree, it has its own importance and it is never considered as merely a trellis for the grapes as long as the grape vine is not draped over these branches.

Note the contrast to the stringency mentioned in the following halachah. The reason for the leniency in this halachah is that the branches of a fruit-bearing tree are considered entities in their own right and are not subservient to the vine. Hence, since it was permitted to sow the crops there, they are not forbidden if the vine grows unintentionally.

I.e., portions of the trellises to which the vines have not spread.

For they are considered as equivalent to the trellises, as stated in the previous halachah.

Since he transgressed by sowing there, our Sages required him to uproot the crops (Radbaz). From the Rambam’s wording here and in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Kilayim 6:3), it would appear that he maintains that only the crops are forbidden, but not the vines.

Since his intent is not to drape vines upon them, they are not considered as part of the trellis [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid. 6:8)].

Our translation is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid. 6:9).

Our translation is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid. 7:1).

For he is not planning to have the vine grow upon it.

See Chapter 8, Halachah 3.

For this is the space necessary to tend to the vineyard (Kilayim 7:1).

For this is considered as a vineyard.

Note, however, the exception in Halachah 7.

I.e., when are the vines considered as a collective, a vineyard, and not individual entities.

Here the four cubits are measured tightly, rather than amply. Compare to Chapter 8, Halachah 12.

When the vines are planted so densely, they will not grow well. Thus we assume that ultimately, the middle vines will be uprooted. Since that is their eventual fate, even while they exist, they are not considered as significant entities.

For each row is considered as an independent entity and hence, it is only necessary to make a six handbreadth separation between them.
The Ra’avad follows a more stringent view and maintains that since there are three rows, they appear as a vineyard. Unless there is a significant distance - sixteen cubits - between them, they are considered as a collective. The Kessef Mishneh states that although the Mishnah (Kilayim 4:8) appears to support the Ra’avad’s view, the Rambam’s opinion has its source in the Jerusalem Talmud.

For, with regard to the produce sowed within it, each row is considered like an individual vine.

This vineyard was designated as a vineyard from the outset and an outside observer should be able to see that it is separate from an adjoining field. Hence, a proper separation must be made from its outer borders.

In which instance, it is necessary to. make a separation of four cubits, as stated in Halachah 11.

Despite the fact that the two rows of vines belong to two separate individuals, since they are close enough to appear as a single entity, it is forbidden to sow crops between them and one must make a separation of four cubits on the outside [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Kilayim 4:7)].

Inspired by the Ra’avad’s gloss, we have chosen this translation, rather than the term “public thoroughfare” which is usually used, because, here the road is no more than eight handbreadths wide, as stated at the conclusion of the halachah, while a “public thoroughfare” is sixteen cubits wide, as stated in Hilchot Matanot Aniyim 3:3 and Hilchot Shabbat 14:1. Notably, in his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam mentions the figure of sixteen cubits.

If, however, it is ten handbreadths high, it is considered as a distinguishing factor, as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 15.

Certain restrictions, nevertheless, apply, as stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 5.

According to the standard published text of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Kilayim 6:2), the Rambam changed his mind when issuing the ruling here. Rav Kappach, however, maintains that a printing error crept into that text.

Ordinarily, a vineyard must have at least two rows of three vines each, as implied by Halachot 1-2. The differences between an ordinary vineyard and a small vineyard are mentioned in Halachah 13. Diagram

This represents the Rambam’s interpretation of the phrase “two opposite two, and one in between” in Kilayim 4:6. Diagram

50 cubits by 50 cubits.

I.e., it is obviously sparsely planted. Nevertheless, there are enough vines in it for it to be called a vineyard and sowing other species is forbidden.

The Radbaz interprets this as meaning “two opposite two and one projecting like a tail” as in the previous halachot.

And it is forbidden to sow other crops there and one must separate four cubits from its outer perimeter before sowing other crops.

I.e., and not as individual vines. Hence, the restrictions mentioned in the previous note apply.

The amount of space necessary to perform work in the vineyard.

Thus he will save a circle with a radius of at least 8 cubits in which to sow crops [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Kilayim 4:1)).

For the area is still considered as a vineyard.

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.).

The requirement of twelve cubits is determined as follows: Four cubits are required for the tilling of the vineyard and four cubits are required for a path near the fence. If the remaining space is less than four cubits wide, it is not significant and is considered subsumed to the vineyard. If it is larger than that, it is considered as an independent entity and it is permitted to sow crops in it (Eruvin 93ab).

For the prohibition is a Rabbinic safeguard.

I.e., one with at least three rows of three vines.

From the Jerusalem Talmud (Kilayim 4:1), it appears that this term refers to a vineyard with three rows of two vines. Certainly it applies to one with only five vines, as described in Halachah 7
As mentioned above, with regard to a large vineyard, the owner is willing to refrain from sowing the four cubits next to the fence so that they can be used as a path. With regard to a small vineyard, he is not prepared to forgo the use of so much space.

In which instance, the leniency mentioned in Halachah 3 applies (Kessef Mishneh).

Since this vineyard is planted irregularly, the laws governing the ordinary pattern in which vines are planted do not apply (Kesef Misheh).

This is referring to a stone fence, which was usually built ten by four.

One of the reasons four cubits were left open next to the fence for people to walk was that walking there strengthened the fence. A fence that does not possess those dimensions does not need to be strengthened.

Without moving away from the fence or trench. The fence or the trench itself creates a distinction between the two crops.

The rationale is that within three cubits, we apply the principle of l'vud and the open space between the reeds is considered as closed [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Kilayim 4:3)].

Four cubits.

That are less than ten cubits wide.

With regard to the following, note the parallels to Hilchot Shabbat 16:16.

He may, however, sow opposite the portions that remain standing, provided they are four cubits wide.

And there is grain or vegetables growing outside it.

As a warning. At this stage, the status of the produce is not changed.

And the produce increases 1/200th in size.

Because there is no distinction between the other produce and the vineyard.

Note the parallels in Hilchot Shabbat 17:35; Hilchot Sukkah 4:5, 8-9.

Even though the vineyard is indoors, there is still a Rabbinic prohibition involved.

For the two courtyards are considered as a single entity. Diagram

Provided one separates four cubits.

I.e., a portion of its walls remain standing.

See Chapter 5, Halachah 8, Chapter 6, Halachah 11, and Halachah 22 of this chapter.

And is thus surrounded by the vineyard on all three sides. Accordingly, although the trench is a separate entity, it is forbidden to sow within it.

As stated in Halachah 11.

When mentioning the. principles upon which this law is based, Kilayim 4:2-3 does not speak of a path. The Rambam, however, mentions it as a further inclusion, teaching that even if people use it to walk back and forth, it is not considered a separation unless it is of the appropriate length (Radbaz).

Halachah l I.

Alternatively, a guardhouse.

Since it has these dimensions, it is considered as a separate entity, distinct from the vineyard. Although a trench must pass from one end of the vineyard to the other as stated in Halachah 20, greater leniency is granted in this instance, because the mound stands out because of its height.

This reflects the Rambam’s translation of the word kotesh in Kilayim 5:3.

Since the space is rectangular, it is distinct and considered significant, even if it is not four handbreadths by four handbreadths (P’nei Moshe, Jerusalem Talmud, Kilayim 5:3).

I.e., it must be able to circumscribe a square four handbreadths by four handbreadths (Radbaz).

I.e., if the base of the mound was a stone, there must be three handbreadths of loose earth.

Our translation, though not literal, is based on the gloss of the Radbaz.

The meaning of this phrase is somewhat problematic and in fact it is lacking in certain versions of the Mishneh Torah. According to the Jerusalem Talmud, this refers to the height of the building. The intent being that if the building is not four cubits high, one must hollow out its earth so that it reaches the height of four handbreadths.

Because of its walls, the building is a distinct entity and one inay sow up to the wall itself, even at the entrance. There is no need to make a separation (Radbaz).

Based on the halachic principle of l’vud.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Kilayim 5:4), the Rambam writes that this refers to a pit used to store water.

For this is the amount of space necessary to till one vine (ibid.).

This is an extension of the principle stated in the following halachah (Rav Yosef Corcus).

Since the fence is significant, it causes everything contained within it to be considered as a single entity. Hence, the entire enclosed area is considered as a vineyard even though it contains only one vine (Radbaz).

For the minimum requirements have been met.

For this is sufficient even in a vineyard.

And lowered the branches and the clusters into the trench.

Thus the laws governing an aris are more severe than those governing a vineyard. For in a vineyard, it is not necessary to separate more than six handbreadths, because one row is not considered as a vineyard (Chapter 7, Halachah 1).

Generally, a fence creates a distinction and it is not necessary to make a separation on its outside (Chapter 7, Halachah 14). In this instance, however, since the vines are draped over the fence itself, it is considered as part of the aris and a separation is required (Kessef Mishneh).
The Ra’avad differs and maintains that a fence always creates a distinction and there is no need to separate on its outer side. The source for the Rambam’s ruling is Kilayim 6:1. Significantly, in his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam follows the Ra’avad’s approach and maintains that one measures only on the inside of the fence. There he explains that the School of Hillel, whose view is accepted as halachah, maintains that one measures four cubits from the fence. Thus the other crops need only be separated three cubits from the base of the vine.
Rav Kappach notes that in a manuscript copy of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Misimah, Rav Avraham, the Rambam’s son, corrected his father’s text, based on the ruling heie. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh note that the Rambam’s change of mind is dependent on his understanding of the treatment of the mishnah in the Jerusalem Talmud.

The Radbaz mentions that the fence does not have to be destroyed entirely. As long as its height is reduced below ten handbreadths, the laws of an aris no longer apply.

As stated in Chapter 7, Halachah 1.

There were two rows of vines separated by a wall over which they were both draped. Thus the wall causes them to be considered as a single entity. The Ra’avad offers a different interpretation of this situation.

As long as there are slightly more than eight cubits between the two rows, they are considered as separate entities and not as a single vineyard, as stated in Chapter 7, Halachah 2. As the Mishnah states (Kilayim 6:6), this is the only instance where an extra amount beyond whole numbers is required.

Chapter 6, Halachah 12.

I.e., it was destroyed entirely or partially.

Either partially or to a height of ten handbreadths.

I, e., at least five vines.

This follows the Rambam’s approach (explained in Halachah 3), that a fence over which vines are draped does not act as a separation for them even if they are located outside it. The Ra’avad differs in his gloss to that halachah and differs in this instance as well. [Significantly, in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ediot 2:4), the Rambam’s position resembles the Ra’avad’s interpretation here.]

The Jerusalem Talmud (Kilayim 6:1) interprets this as being two cubits: one for the reaper and one for his basket.

He must, however, separate six handbreadths [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Kilayim 6:2)].

Since the space between the two fences is very small, the entire area is considered as a single unit.

I.e., a trellis ten handbreadths high. Diagram

I.e., they extend low enough that he can reach them without standing on any support.

As would be the law if there was only one vine.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Kilayim 6:7), the Rambam depicts this situation as illustrated. Diagram

Six handbreadths [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Kilayim 6:7)].

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Kilayim 7:1), the Rambam adds: “If [the original stem] was apparent and it is obvious that it is the base of the vine that became bent, we measure. from the original base.” This is speaking about a situation as depicted in the accompanying diagram. Diagram

Chapter 6, Halachah 11.

For they were produced before the vines were introduced (Radbaz; see Chapter 5, Halachah 13).

I.e., that one's fingers are not tightly pressed together, but held in a manner that allows air to pass between them [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Eruvin 1:1)]. See also Hilchot Shabbat 17:36.

See Chapter 7, Halachah 2.

Where the prohibitions against mixed species apply according to Scriptural Law.

Which in certain contexts is considered as Eretz Yisrael (see Hilchot Terumot 1 :3-4) and where they apply according to Rabbinic Law.

Among the vines themselves, however, it is forbidden to sow, even in the Diaspora (Kessef Mishneh).

One may not, however, ask a Jewish child to perform such an activity, lest he become habituated to transgression (Shabbat 139a).

The Turei Zahav 296:21 rules that even at the outset, it is permitted to ask a gentile child to do this.

The Kessef Mishneh quotes Rabbenu Asher as differing with this ruling and permitting the vegetables to be eaten. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 296:69) follows the Rambam’s ruling, while the Rama follows that of Rabbenu Asher.

The conclusion of the tractate Orlah relates that if vegetables are being sold outside a vineyard in the Diaspora,. one may purchase them provided one does not see them being harvested.

Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 10:6-8.