Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Kilayim 1:2), the Rambam defines this as “mountain lettuce.” The examples cited by the Rambam in this and following halachot are all taken from Kilayim, ch. 1. Our translation is largely dependent on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah and Rav Kappach’s notes to that text.

This squash has a bitter taste and is made edible only by putting it in a remetz, a pit filled with smoldering ashes (ibid.).

Two types of wild beans.

See Halachah 6.

The Rambam also states this principle in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Kilayim 3:1). According to his understanding, it is our perception which determines whether one is mixing species or not. Their biological nature is a secondary factor.

The Ra’avad differs on the principle explained by the Rambam and considers these species as kilayim.

The Rambam is stating· a general principle with which he introduces the coming halachot.

I.e., slightly more than that sum (Kessef Mishneh).

Our translation is based on the gloss of the Kessef Mishneh who cites the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Kilayim 3:3) as a source.
The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh cite the Jerusalem Talmud (Kilayim 2:7) which states that if one species surrounds the other on all four sides, such a separation is not sufficient. They say that one could understand the Rambam as alluding to that view. The Aruch HaShulchan 297:32, however, explains that the Rambam differs.

I.e., unless it is less than the smaller figure, it is not forbidden by Scriptural Law. Nevertheless, as a safeguard, our Sages required an even greater separation.

Whose leaves spread very far (see Halachah 13).

Although the Ra’avad rules stringently, stating that the measures mentioned in the previous halachah apply in this instance as well, the Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh justify the Rambam’s approach.

Since there is grain involved, we rule stringently (Radbaz).

Here the Rambam does not define what constitutes a field. In Hilchot Matnot Aniyim 3:4, he states that a small field is 50 cubits by 2 cubits and in Hilchot Shechenim 1:4, he defines a field as a place that is fit to sow nine kabbim. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Bava Basra 1:6), he defines that as being 3750 sq. cubits.

If he wants to sow this row in the middle of the field, he must leave such a trench on either side (Radbaz).

For a separation this size is sufficient to set the row apart as a distinct entity [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Kilayim 3:3)].

The trench must be at least a handbreadth deep.

See Chapter 4, Halachah 3, and notes.

The Radbaz explains that he could also cut off the extensions of the squash plants, but apparently, he would suffer a greater loss from doing that than from uprooting the grain. Hence, the Rambam is simply giving him good advice.

The Radbaz mentions that this also refers to the concepts mentioned in the previous halachah. It is, nevertheless, placed here to teach that even though there is grain involved (see Halachah 9), since we are speaking only of one row, there is no need for additional stringency.

Even though there is an appropriate separation, the species appear to be mixed [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Kilayim 3:11)].

Our translation follows the gloss of the Radbaz. Others interpret the term bor as referring to an unplowed field.

Which is four cubits wide (see Hilchot Matanot Aniyim 3:3).

And thus it appears as a tent [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Kilayim 3:11)].

This ruling is an outgrowth of the rationale for the prohibition against mixed species: not to intermingle the different spiritual powers that give energy to the various crops (see the commentary of Rabbenu Bachaye to Leviticus 19:19). If the properties belong to two different people - even though the land on which the different crops grow are adjacent - the two spiritual mediums of nurture will not be intermingled (Yayin Malchut).

And thus they will not appear as mixed species to an onlooker.

Despite the fact that the two fields appear to be one continuous field of wheat, planting the one row of flax is permitted for the rationale explained by the Rambam (Radbaz).

I.e., he is not intending to reap any benefit from planting this flax. For this reason, the prohibition against kilayim does not apply.

I.e., since the reason for the leniency is that everyone can see that he has no benefit from the row of flax, when that rationale does not apply, the leniency is not granted.

I.e., a species other than flax that people might commonly sow only one row of.

Our text is based on authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah. The version in the standard printed text is slightly different.

Needless to say, this applies when the fields are sown with the same species (Radbaz).

I.e., these are crops for which there is a benefit in sowing a single row. Hence, in contrast to the flax mentioned in the previous halachah, a prohibition exists.
The commentaries note that the Rambam’s statements here appear to contradict his statement in Chapter 1, Halachah 9, in which he states that it is customary to sow entire fields of mustard seed. They are, however, reinforced by his statements in Hilchot Matnot Aniyim 3:11.

Since mustard seed and safflower seed have a harmful effect on other crops, there is no prohibition. Significantly, in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Kilayim 2:8), the Rambam writes the direct opposite, that mustard seed and safflower seed have a harmful effect on grain, but not on other crops.
Rav Yosef Corcus notes that from the previous halachah, one might think that it is permitted to plant only a row of flax, but not of other species, because only flax is planted as an experiment. And from this halachah, one might think only mustard seed and safflower seed are forbidden, for otherwise, there would be no reason to single them out individually, but other species are permitted. In resolution, he explains that here the emphasis is on mustard seed and flax seed individually. Since they are permitted next to other species, one might think that they are also permitted next to grain. Hence, it is necessary to emphasize that this is not so.

Even though they are adjacent, the manner in which they are planted makes a clear distinction. Diagram

In Halachah 16.

Chapter 3, Halachah 12, states that these trenches must be as wide as they are deep. The Aruch HaShulchan writes that the trench must be at least four handbreadths wide.

Although these species are considered as kilayim, sowing them in this manner is permitted, because of the precautions that are taken. For each block of a particular crop appears as a separate field [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Kilayim 3:4)]. Although in the following halachah, a twelve cubit stretch of each crop is required, that is because one is sowing only one row of the squash. Hence, it does not look like a field of squash and sowing a larger stretch of vegetables is required (Radbaz).

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid. :6), the Rambam writes that a row of squash is four cubits wide.

In such an instance, each block of vegetables appears as a separate field, as stated above (Radbaz).
The width of the trench is not counted because it does not have a specific measure, nor must it extend over the entire length of the field (Rav Yosef Corcus).

10 and one fifth cubits by 10 and one fifth cubits. This stringency is required because the laws governing grain are stricter than those governing vegetables.

The Radbaz notes that in Chapter 3, Halachah 13, the Rambam speaks of making a separation of six handbreadths between grain and squash and here, he requires a much larger figure. He explains that here we are speaking about a situation in which the squash has already grown and its leaves are extended, while there we are speaking of squash that is just beginning to grow.

I.e., a rock that is less the ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide. If it is of the latter size, it alone is considered a sufficient divider, as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 15.

If they are not this deep, they are considered to be flush with the earth and the leniency mentioned in this halachah does not apply.

For each type of plant appears distinct.

Whose leaves spread and become entangled [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Kilayim 3:5)].

And the foundation of the prohibition of Kilayim is the impression created (ibid.).

I.e., the separation made initially is sufficient to distinguish the crops sown throughout the field. Diagram

The Ra’avad notes that the Rambam uses the term karachat which usually means “bald patch” to refer, not to the area of the field that is left empty, but the area which is planted. Diagram

Ten and one fifth cubits, as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 10.

The Hebrew terms used in the two preceding halachot.

Chapter 1, Halachah 9.

This is the measure in which plants derive nurture from the earth (ibid.). The Rambam, however, does not always focus on this point, because he views the impression created of equal significance, as stated at the conclusion of the chapter.

Even if he does not fill up the borders, it is forbidden as a decree, lest he come to do so (Kessef Mishneh). Diagram

For the trench appears as a distinction.

I.e., one species in each different comer.

I.e. since the species are sown on the barrier, they are distinct from those sown within the trench.

I.e., lest the turnip grow large and fill up the empty space on the border.

For it will be cluttered and appear as a mixture (Radbaz).

E.g., mustard or smooth peas (Kilayim 3:2).

It is customary to sow larger plots of these crops. Hence if one sows a row of the above size with different species of these crops, it will appear to be a mixture of species.

Halachah 12.

I.e., some of its earth was taken away.

It is, however, forbidden to sow crops on the side of the barrier until its height is restored [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Kilayim 3:2)]. There, however, the Rambam interprets the barrier as referring to a divider between two types of crops, not a barrier around a row.

I.e., the area between the circles and the perimeter of the square.

The Ra’avad objects to this ruling. The Rambam’s rationale depends on the principle explained in the following halachah: that when crops appear distinct, we are not concerned that they derive nurture from each other.

A handbreadth and a half.

Halachah 9.

The wording of the prooftext implies that one is sowing mixed species - i.e., two species that are themselves kilayim - in a vineyard, i.e., together with grape seeds (Radbaz).

Provided he is given a warning for each of the prohibitions (ibid.).

As explained in Chapter I.

I.e., he transgresses a negative commandment, included as one of the 365 negative commandments by Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 216) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 548).

Not only wheat and barley, but all five species of grain are considered as mixed species when sown with grapes and are forbidden according to Scriptural Law.

For the only concept of kilayim that applies with regard to crops in the Diaspora is the prohibition against grafting different species of trees. The prohibition against mixed crops, like all the other laws concerning the crops of Eretz Yisrael, do not apply in the Diaspora.

These species, like grapes, require three years before their produce appears. For the prohibition against mixed species to apply, the produce must resemble that of the grape vine.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Kilayim 2:5), the Rambam writes that he does not see how it is possible for there to be a vegetable plant that does not produce fruit for three years. That is a common phenomenon for trees and vines, but not for vegetables. He writes that these species of vegetables do remain in the ground for several years and continue to produce fruit and that appears to be the Rambam's intent.

As stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 3.

As mentioned in Hilchat Ma’achalot Assurot 10:6, Deuteronomy 22:9 states: ‘”Lest the fullness of the seed which you sowed and the produce of the vineyard become hallowed.’ [‘Becom(ing) hallowed’] means being set apart and forbidden.”
In contrast, mixed species in the field are forbidden to be eaten, but it is permitted to benefit from them, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 7.

This applies even on land belonging to a gentile. The Radbaz maintains that, according to the Rambam, this prohibition applies even on land belonging to a gentile in the Diaspora. Since it is forbidden for a Jew to plant such crops there according to Rabbinic Law, it is forbidden to help a gentile.

With the intent of destroying it.

The Radbaz asks: Since mixed substances that grow on a gentile’s land are not prohibited, why are they referred to as undesirable substances? He explains that since they are forbidden when growing on a Jew’s land, they are considered as undesirable even when growing on a gentile’s land.

I.e., plants that do not produce edible produce. This applies even according to Rabbinic Law (Kessef Mishneh ). See Halachah 19 for illustrations of this principle.

I.e., all types of trees may be planted in a vineyard.

The Beit Yosef (Yoreh De’ah 296) states that the Rambam’s wording implies that only one species of vegetable or grain is present. Although Halachah 1 states that to be liable for lashes, he must sow two mixed species together, a prohibition is involved when even one is present.

For as stated in Halachah 2, he is not liable for lashes unless he sows the mixed species. together.

From the Rambam’s wording, it is clear that he does not consider this as a Rabbinic safeguard, but rather the violation of a Scriptural prohibition.

I.e., the prohibition does not apply only to the produce, but to the plants themselves. See the gloss of the Radbaz.

Moreover, if a new oven is fired with them, it is forbidden to benefit from the oven itself. For firing a new oven completes it (Pesachim 26a).

The owner of the field is not, however, liable for lashes, because he aid not perform a deed.

We find this principle in several other contexts (e.g., Hilchot Nizirut 9:9; Hilchot Arachin 4:26). Nevertheless, in those instances, the consecration of the article does not reflect a physical change in its state, but rather its designation as being holy. It is logical to conceive that only the owner of an article can make such a designation. In the present instance, by contrast, the different species of produce become hallowed because of the fact that they grow together. Seemingly, it makes no difference why they grow together, whether they were planted by the owner or by another person. Indeed, if a person puts milk into a pot cooking with meat belonging to his colleague, the food becomes prohibited.
For this reason, although the Rambam accepts the above principle in other contexts. He found it problematic with regard to kilayim. Thus in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Kilayim 7:4), he originally favored the opinions which maintain that the above principle does not apply in this instance. Only later in life did he change his view and rule, as above, that it does apply. According to Rav Kappach, at that time, he also amended his Commentary to the Mishnah.

For in the Sabbatical year, the field is not his own. Instead, it is ownerless.

The Ra’avad (based on the Jerusalem Talmud, Kilayim 7:5) interprets this as referring to a situation where the person is working for the owner of the field. Otherwise, he maintains there is no reason to rule that he should be forbidden to benefit. Rav Y osef Corcus and the Radbaz explain the Rambam’s ruling. Rav Yosef Corcus states that it applies to a person who has the right to enter his colleague’s field even though he is not working there (see also Turei Zahav 296:3). Otherwise, he would not have any effect on it, even for himself. The Radbaz states that the Rambam’s ruling applies even to a person at large. Since he did not notify the owner about the problem, it is as if he took a vow to personally consider the produce as forbidden.

In the time of the Roman occupation, it was common for landed property to be taken by force. Our Sages addressed the possible halachic problems that arise in such a situation.

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Kilayim 7:6). Others interpret the term as meaning that the land is no longer referred to as belonging to the original owner.

The Radbaz explains that since the owner is forced to hide, even though in his own heart, he hopes to have the land returned, it is as if he has already given up hope (Radbaz).

Our translation is based on authentic manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. It also follows the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (according to Rav Kappach’s version). The standard printed text of the Mishneh Torah - and also that followed by the Kessef Mishneh - follows a different version. In all cases, the basic intent remains the same.

I.e., and in the time he did not remove them, they grew 1/200th, as stated in Halachah 22

For, as evident from Halachah 21, a person does not cause produce to be considered kilayim unless he willfully allows the mixed species to grow.

Lest he be liable for maintaining kilayim.

The intermediate days of a festival, when there are restrictions against performing work in one’s fields (see Hilchot Sh’vitat Yom Tov, ch. 7). Nevertheless, in this instance, he is required to do so, to avoid the violation of the prohibition against kilayim.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Kilayim 7:6), the Rambam gives an example. If the worker’s wage was normally three zuz a day, he should be paid four.

I.e., it grows 1/200th.

Wheat or vegetables.

The grapes.

Before grain is ready to be harvested, the kernels dry out and harden.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.:?), the Rambam explains that the prooftext describing the prohibition speaks of “the seed” and “the produce.” The Hebrew terms imply produce that is in the process of developing and not produce that has already developed fully and is ready to be harvested.

I.e., according to Scriptural Law, neither the vines, nor the grain or the vegetables are forbidden.

According to Rabbinic decree. Not only may one not partake of them, it is forbidden to benefit from them.

The Ra’avad states that it is permitted to benefit from the produce of the vine, implying that it is forbidden to partake of it. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh, however, differ and maintain that it is permitted even to partake of it.

The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh state that this ruling appears to contradict the Rambam’s statements made previously, that “he is penalized and we forbid the growths,” implying that it is forbidden to benefit from them. They each suggest possible resolutions of the issue.

This is speaking about a situation where the grain or the vegetables have taken root. The grain or the vegetables are forbidden, as above.

It appears that, according to the Rambam, it is forbidden to partake of their produce immediately. The Ra’avad permits one to partake of it. His rationale is that since they did not take root, it is as if they were never planted. The Radbaz explains that the prohibition against partaking of the produce is a Rabbinic safeguard.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Kilayim 7:2), the Rambam emphasizes that we are speaking about a vine that is alive and will produce grapes in the future and not one that has dried out entirely. If the vine is totally dried out, it is permissible to sow other species near it (Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh, commenting on the gloss of the Ra’avad).

As indicated by Chapter I, Halachah 2, this reflects a general principle applicable in many contexts of agricultural law: If a flowerpot has a hole at its bottom, it is considered as being a part of the field, because it derives nurture there. If it does not have such a hole, it is considered as a separate entity.

The punishment administered for the violation of a Rabbinic commandment.

For it derives nurture from the ground through the hole. See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 5: 10).

Without his knowledge.

On the contrary, they fell in the vineyard against his will [ibid. (Kilayim 5:7)].

For whenever mixed species are maintained in a vineyard, they become hallowed, as stated in Halachah 8.

But had not seen them beforehand.

Although generally, kilayim should be destroyed by fire, an exception is made in this instance, because - since the newly grown crops are moist and not appropriate to be burnt.

I.e., even its straw (Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh; this ruling appears to contradict the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.).

The grain is forbidden from the time it becomes rooted in the ground. The vines are not forbidden unless they grow l/200th of their size. Alternatively, since he did not purposely plant the grain, even if the vines grew that much, they are not forbidden as long as the person did not willfully maintain the mixed species (Radbaz).

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Kilayim 5:8), the Ramham explains that this is also derived from the prooftext cited above. “Which you sowed” implies “what is customary for you to sow.”

Compare to Chapter 1, Halachah 4.

I.e., everything depends on the prevailing local practice. What the person thinks individually is not of consequence.

Our translation is taken from Rav Kappach’s notes to the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah ( Uktzin 1 :6).

As stated in Halachah 6, all types of trees may be planted in a vineyard.

In such an instance, each year, the trunk changes.

Compare to Hilchot Ma’aser Sheni I :7. See also Hilchot Berachot 8:6.

I.e., he need not hurry to uproot it immediately, but may proceed at his ordinary pace, provided he does not delay.

He has transgressed, because he has maintained mixed produce in a vineyard.

As the Jerusalem Talmud (Kilayim 5:6) explains, a plant will grow at the same rate that it will dry out. (As the Radbaz points out, this applies over the entire span. The particular phases of its growth and drying will vary.)

As stated in the notes to Halachah 16, when such a flowerpot is left on the ground, it is considered as if the pot is connected to the earth and it as if the plants growing in it are part of the vineyard. As a safeguard, our Rabbis forbade even carrying such a flowerpot through a vineyard.

According to the Rambam, however, the produce growing in it does not become hallowed.

And thus it became forbidden as kilayim.

But the forbidden onion plant was left in the ground.

And mixed species are nullified in a mixture 200 times the size of the original amount.

Instead, despite the growth of the onion plant, the root remains forbidden. Rabbi Akiva Eiger notes that the Rambam rules in this manner in Hilchot Neta Reva’i 10:16. In Hilchot Terumah 11 :22, he rules otherwise.
The Rambam’s wording could be interpreted as implying that the plant that grows from the root is permitted. This is the conclusion of Rav Yosef Corcus. There are other Rishonim who maintain that the entire plant is forbidden. Kin ‘at Eliyahu notes that in Hilchot Nedarim 5:15, the Rambam rules: “If it was an entity whose seed does not decompose, even the produce that grows from the produce that grows from them is forbidden.” Seemingly, the same principles would apply here.