1)

WHEN R. YOCHANAN BEN NURI BURNED KILAYIM (Yerushalmi Kilayim Perek 6 Halachah 4 Daf 30b)

" " " [ ] .

(a)

(Concerning our Mishnah of Piskei Aris ('gaps in an Aris')) it makes no difference whether he first built a fence and then planted 11 vines or vice versa and it was later cut down in the middle - it was an Aris before it was cut down and it became Piskei Aris after it was cut down.

.

(b)

If the fence was then destroyed, it's no longer called an Aris nor Piskei Aris.

.

(c)

Question (R. Avudimi, brother of R. Yosi): If he rebuilt the fence, does the law of Aris or the law of Piskei Aris return?

.

(d)

(R. Yosi citing R. Yochanan): It once happened that R. Yochanan ben Nuri burned Kilayim in Nagnigar.

.

(e)

What did he burn? Piskei Aris.

' ' " .

(f)

(R. Chiya citing R. Yochanan): It once happened that R. Yochanan ben Nuri burned Kilayim in Nagnigar.

.

(g)

What did he burn? Kilayim that were planted between an Aris and the fence.

. .

(h)

Question (R. Yosi): I asked R. Yaakov bar Acha - according to my version, it needed to be said that R. Yochanan ben Nuri burned Piskei Aris, because the Chachamim disagree with him (in the later Mishnah in Perek 7 Mishnah 2 - Menachos 78-2(e)) and do not prohibit the growths; but according to R. Chiya's version (that he burned Kilayim that were planted between an Aris and the fence), why did R. Yochanan need to tell us that R. Yochanan ben Nuri did this if the Chachamim agree that it is prohibited?

[ ( )] " " .

(i)

Rebuttal: Didn't R. Yosi hear the teaching of R. Yaakov bar Acha that R. Yochanan and R. Shimon ben Lakish disagreed over whether the seeds that grew between an Aris and the fence are prohibited - R. Yochanan prohibited planting there and prohibited the growths; R. Shimon ben Lakish (merely Rabbinically) prohibited planting but permitted the growths. (Therefore, R. Yochanan needed to tell the story of R. Yochanan ben Nuri as a proof against R. Shimon ben Lakish.)

.

(j)

(The Mishnah taught that if an Aris grows out of a wall along a corner (with 2 vines on one wall and 3 vines on the adjacent wall), it's given work access and he may plant after that.) It may be planted only if the wall continues at least 4 Tefachim beyond the vines.

' . . .

(k)

(The Mishnah taught from R. Yosi that if there aren't four Amos of distance, he may not introduce another seed there.) R. Yosi's view was taught here (that one may not plant) and it was taught there (earlier in Perek 5 Halachah 3 - Menachos 66(e) where R. Yosi prohibits planting in a winepress in a pit that contains one vine that if there aren't four Amos there, he shouldn't introduce another seed there.) (Why did R. Yosi's opinion need to be said twice?) If it would have only been taught about the Aris, I would have said that here, it's only prohibited because there are 5 vines and it's judged with the laws of Aris and vineyard.

. .

1.

On the other hand, if it would have only been taught there about the winepress, I would have said that there, it's only prohibited because it is surrounded on all four sides.

.

(l)

(The Mishnah taught that if a shoot of one of the grape vines of the Aris extends beyond the Aris's work access area, we view it as if a plumb line was hanging from it and below it may not planted (with other seeds). In Bavel they said that you view it as if a metal spit is inserted into the shoot, (prohibiting only what is directly underneath it).

.

(m)

(Shimon bar Ba citing R. Yochanan): It prohibits as far as the shoot sways.

[ ( )] [ ] . .

(n)

(R. Chama bar Ukva citing R. Yosi ben Chanina): Under the clusters it is prohibited and it prohibits, but under the leaves it does not prohibit.

:

(o)

(R. Yosi): Even under the leaves is prohibited and it prohibits.

HADRAN ALACH PEREK EIZEHU ARIS