Kilaayim - Chapter 6

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.