Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

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.