(Mishnah): If the end of a row of vegetables enters into a field of another vegetable, it is permitted, as it's apparent that it's end of his field. (This is known as a Rosh Tur.)

If one's field was planted with a vegetable and he wishes to plant in it a row of another vegetable...

(R. Yishmael): It is permitted only when the furrow runs from one end of the field to the other.

(R. Akiva): It must be six Tefachim long and as wide as the field.

(R. Yudah): (It's sufficient) as long as it's the width of a footstep.

(Gemara): If the end of a row... Bar Kapara taught in a Baraisa that he may only plant one species there. (Note: This entry was wrongly printed here in the Gemara. Its correct location is in the previous sugya in Halachah 2. The first Tanna (Menachos 49-1(c)) said that if a furrow or a stream were a Tefach deep, one may plant three types of seeds in them. Bar Kapara disagrees and only permits planting one species.)

Question: According to R. Yishmael, what is the required width of the furrow?

Answer: If R. Akiva, who permits even when it's surrounded on three sides and the furrow is not so visible, he requires the furrow to be any minimal width; R. Yishmael who requires it to be open on both ends, will certainly require only minimal width.

Question: What would R. Yishmael say about a row of vegetables in a grain field? (The Gemara earlier (Menachos 43(c)) cited a Baraisa that if one wishes to sow a row of vegetables in the middle of his grain field, he should make a row of separation 101/2 Amos long and 6 Tefachim wide. Would R. Yishmael be more stringent and require the row to pass from one side of the field to the other?)

Answer: If R. Akiva, who is lenient here (to require a row passing through a vegetable field to be only 6 Tefachim), is stringent there (to require the row to be 101/2 Amos); R. Yishmael who is stringent here (to require the row to pass all the way through) will certainly be stringent there (to require the row to pass all the way through).

Clarification of question: The question was not about the length, but rather about the width of the row... (Is R. Yishmael also more stringent than R. Akiva about the width to require more than 6 Tefachim?)

Answer: Just as over here, they don't disagree about the width of the furrow, so too over there, about a row of vegetables inside a grain field.

(Shmuel): The Mishnah only permitted one row but not two.

(R. Yochanan and R. Shimon ben Lakish): There's no difference between one and two.

(R. Shimon ben Lakish): One may clear a space to plant four rows of vegetables in a valley) containing another vegetable.

(R. Yochanan): As long as the two outer rows have the same width as vegetable beds (even if the inner two are only six Tefachim wide).

(R. Zeira): As long as three of the six Tefachim width of the two outer rows are planted.

(R. Huna): R. Yehuda's source (to require the width of the furrow to be a Tefach) is the pasuk (Devarim 11:10), "and which you watered by foot, like a vegetable garden''. What's the width of a foot? A Tefach.

Question: R. Yehuda taught here that between a row and a field there must be a Tefach distance. But didn't R. Yehuda already teach it earlier (in the Halachah 1) when he said that one may plant six species in a vegetable bed (since only a Tefach separation is needed)?

Answer: If it would have only been taught here, I would have said that if even R. Yehuda who is stringent here is lenient there (to allow 6 species because only a Tefach gap is needed); Rabbanan who are lenient here (to allow the width of the furrows to be less than a Tefach), will certainly be lenient there (to also allow 6 species). This is why the Rabbanan's opinion needed to be taught there. Or if it would have been taught there and not here, I would have said that even though the Rabbanan are stringent there, they are lenient here; then certainly R. Yehuda who is lenient there would be lenient here. This is why the two cases needed to be taught.