(Mishnah): If a vineyard is planted with less than 4 Amos between the rows, R. Shimon says it's not a vineyard; Chachamim say that it's a vineyard and we view the middle rows as non-existent.

(Gemara) Question (R. Shimon to Chachamim): Those vines that you said that we must view as non-existent could be the primary vines in the vineyard?!

(R. Chananya): R. Shimon objected when it was arranged as 6 by 6 rows, but if it was 5 by 5, all agree that we view the middle ones as non-existent.

(R. Mana disagreed): R. Shimon objected when it was 5 by 5, but if it was 6 by 6, even the Chachamim agree that it is not a vineyard, since it is not known which vines will be uprooted.

Question: What's the meaning of the Mishnah's words, "we view the middle rows as non-existent''?

Answer (R. Huna): (They are not considered vines and) one may even have them grow over seeds.

(R. Mana disagrees): (As long as they haven't yet been uprooted, they are viewed as single vines that must be distanced 6 Tefachim.) The Mishnah is a support for R. Yosi's earlier statement (end of Menachos 64) that if the seeds were within (four Tefachim of the rows of the vineyard and within) six Tefachim (of the outermost row), everything is prohibited. And if they were (within 4 Amos of the vineyard, but) more than six Tefachim from the outermost row, the vines are permitted and the vineyard is prohibited.

(Shimon bar Ba citing R. Yochanan): Just as the Tannaim disagree here, so too they disagree over a burial ground. (A Mishnah in Maseches Nazi 9:3 teaches that if a person found 3 graves with gaps of one Amah between them, it is assumed to be a burial ground and he must check a distance of 20 Amos in every direction in order to establish that there are no more graves. If the three graves did not have an Amah gap between them, it is not assumed to be a burial ground. R. Yochanan said that our dispute between R. Eliezer and Chachamim also applies there - the Chachamim reason that if we would remove the middle graves so that the remaining graves would be correctly distanced, it is a burial ground since we can view it that way. R. Shimon reasons that we do not say 'we view...as if'.)

(R. Yona disagrees): They are not comparable - there, if originally they had been sufficiently distanced and then more graves were added between them, all would agree that it is a burial ground. In contrast, if the graves had been too dense and he had removed some in order to correctly distance the remaining graves, it is not a burial ground, since originally they were not buried in that way.

But here, if the vines had been spaced out and he planted in between them, thereby making the remaining ones more dense, this is the case of their dispute. If they had been dense and he spaced them out by removing some, all agree that it's a vineyard.

Over what is the dispute there about the graves? When he came and found them close together (but it is unclear whether they were originally buried that way (meaning that it was not a burial ground) or whether additional graves were added later (but it had originally been established as a burial ground)...

R. Shimon says - I say that a heap of stones fell on them and buried them together (but it was not a burial ground). Rabbanan say that they were originally spaced correctly (as it was a burial ground) and other graves were later added there.