Explanation (R. Tam): In any case we need the verse, for if not for the verse, one might have thought that even though they do not nurture, there is mixing, and it is forbidden. The verse teaches that this is not so, that in such a case there is no mixing;

The verse itself would not suffice, for we would not know that in what area the verse permits five [species];

However, now that Rabanan know that five [species] in six [Tefachim] do not nurture, we should establish the verse to discuss in six [Tefachim].

Question: Still, they nurture from each other, for there are less than three Tefachim between one [species of] seeds and another, for the area seeded is lacking [from the distance separating them], for the entire patch is only six Tefachim!

Answer #1 (R. Tam): The Amos [used to measure] Kil'ayim are smiling (each is of six smiling Tefachim, i.e. the handbreadth is measured with small spaces between the fingers), like is proven in Eruvin (3b).

Answer #2 (Ri): Chachamim have a tradition that five species in six Tefachim do not nurture, including the area seeded (i.e. when it is deducted from the distance separating them).

Question: He can plant nine species in a patch - four in the four corners (one in each corner), four [on the sides, one] in the middle of [each of] the four sides, and one in the middle. Each is three Tefachim from the other [adjacent to it]!

Answer #1: So many [species] is Irbuv (they appear mixed together).

Answer #2: Then, he would be able to plant only one seed of each species. However, when he plants five, he can plant much of four species on each side.

Question (Ri): What is the source to establish the verse to discuss a patch six by six? It could be even less, as long as the diagonal is six, and he will seed four in the corners and one in the middle, for also in such a case they do not nurture from each other!

Answer: It is reasonable that it is forbidden like this, lest he not be meticulous to sow exactly in the corner, and there is concern for nurturing. However, now (that each side is six) he needs to be meticulous only about the seed in the middle.

Answer #3 (to Question (e)): This (lest he not be meticulous) is another answer why one may not sow nine in a patch (six by six).

Question (Rashba): We should establish it in a patch five by five. Now, the diagonal is seven, since for each Amah on the side of a square, the diagonal is an Amah and two fifths. He can sow in the corners without being meticulous!

Answer (Ri): We should not establish the verse in such a case, for [the distance between them] is not the Shi'ur for nurturing or for anything.

Question: If so, one who sows Kil'ayim should be lashed twice, for Lo Sizra, and for Lo Sasig Gevul!

In Chulin (62b), it says that one who sows Kil'ayim Kil'ayim is lashed twice. This implies that for one Kil'ayim, he is lashed only once!

Answer #1: He is not lashed for this Lav (Lo Sasig Gevul), since the verse discusses also literally moving the border. One is not lashed for a Lav (Aveirah) that can be returned (he returns the border to the correct place).

Answer #2: [He is not lashed for Lo Sasig Gevul] because it is Lav shebi'Chlalos (it forbids different matters).

Explanation (R. Tam): This is not Chivi that is one of the seven Kena'ani nations, for we do not expound the reason for all of their names;

Rather, the sons of Se'ir himself are called Chivi, like it says "Bas Tziv'on ha'Chivi." (Emes l'Yakov Bereishis 26:34 asks that Bereishis 36:2 says that Esav's wife Bas Tziv'on was from Kena'an! He answers that really, she was from Ches. Ches was not yet a nation, so the Torah attributes her to Kena'an. Esav called her Chivi to deceive Yitzchak. Chivi was already a nation (so Bas Tzivon is not included in Benos Kena'an, whom Avraham was adamant that Yitzchak not marry them. Alternatively, Yitzchak showed displeasure with Esav's first wife, Adah ha'Chiti, so Esav lied and said that Ahalivamah, his second wife, is from Chivi, and not Chiti. Rivkah [later] realized that both were from Ches (Bereishis 27:46) - PF.))

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This is relevant to a triangle. (If it is properly considered a patch, a triangle of vegetables need not be distanced from a different species.)

Implied question: It says below (85b) that [the leniency of] a triangle does not apply to a patch!

Answer: It does not apply between a patch and another patch (but it applies between a patch and a field).

Explanation #2 (Ri): This is relevant to commerce, if one sold a patch and its border.

Implied question: R. Yehudah does not discuss the border at all! He discusses only the separation between vegetables needed for working, like it says in Kil'ayim (3:3)!

Citation (3:3): If one's field was sown with vegetables, and he wants to plant [a row of] another vegetable, R. Shimon says, a [fallow] furrow open on both sides [must separate them]. R. Yehudah says, it must be the width of a foot.

Answer: The Gemara understands that just like it is considered an interruption for Kil'ayim, it is important to be considered a border for a patch.

Explanation (R. Tam): One might have thought that he does not fill the entire side. Rather, he seeds in the middle of each side a Tefach and three fifths, and leaves on each side towards the corners two Tefachim and a fifth fallow;

Now, the seeds on this side are distanced from the seeds on this [adjacent] side like the length of the diagonal of [a square] two Tefachim and a fifth by two Tefachim and a fifth, which is three Tefachim and an extra two fifths of a fifth [of a Tefach].

Explanation (cont.): The Gemara asks "there is the place of the corners!" He can make patches there, even if he will distance only the amount of two borders [between patches. Why did Rav need to say that we discuss in a Churbah?]

Now there is much distance between the seeds of the inner patch in the middle of the sides, and the seeds of the outer patch on the side of the corner, for there are two borders and the fallow area [on the side of the central patch], which is two Tefachim and a fifth in every corner!

Note: "Every corner" suggests that there is this fallow area also in the outer patches. I.e. the corner of [the border around] each outer patch touches the corner of [the border around] the inner patch. All the patches are aligned like the inner patch; the sides are north-south and east-west, like the diagram in Bach (2). (The small squares in the corners of every big square are fallow areas in the corners. The diagram is not to scale. It looks like the borders are tiny.)

The Gemara answers that he filled the corners of the west and east sides, and in the north and south side there is only a seed, like you will draw, that in that patch there is separation of three [Tefachim. This is like the diagram in Bach (3).]

And if you will come to surround [this patch] with [other] patches (and also in them, two opposite sides are entirely sown), even in the place of the corners, there will not be three Tefachim between the seeds of the middle patch and the seeds of the patches in the corners. The distance between them is only the amount of two borders.

Note: It seems that Tosfos means as follows. If you will surround the inner patch with other patches aligned the same way [the seeds are too close]. And even if you surround it with patches aligned at a 45 degree angle (e.g. their sides run south-west to north-east, and south-east to north-west), there are less than three Tefachim between seeds of the inner patch and seeds of the outer patch in the corners, for only two borders separate them. In the diagram in Tosfos, a small area is shaded touching each corner of the inner patch. Perhaps this represents part of the seeded area in the outer patches that "touch" the corners of the inner patch, i.e. they are separated only by two borders. (Alternatively, the shaded areas represent the distance due to the thickness of the borders. It connotes that the borders around the two patches are parallel with each other, but this is not true.) Tosfos assumes that the sides that "touch" the corners are sown. We address this in the note at the end of this Tosfos.

Implied question: Still, he can sow one seed in each corner of the outer patch!

Answer: We conclude that we decree lest he not be meticulous and fill the corners. Similarly, we decree about the outer [patches], lest he fill [them].

Note: Tosfos assumed that the sides that "touch" the corners are sown. Really, one could leave them empty, and sow the sides adjacent to them. Three Tefachim would separate seeds of different patches! We forbid this, amidst the decree lest one fill the outer patches. Alternatively, we discuss filling an entire region with patches, and not merely four patches around one inner patch. I.e. there is also a patch north of the inner patch, which "touches" the patches to the north-east and north-west of the inner patch. (The same applies to the east, south and west, but it suffices to consider the patch to the north.) If the sides "touching" the inner patch (on the north-east and north-west) are not sown, the sides adjacent to them are sown, and they "touch" the corners of the patch on the north, so less than three Tefachim separates the seeds.

Explanation: [We ask that] he should sow patches to the side of the corners of the middle patch, like I explained, and he should not fill the corners. This is better, for he can have many (sown) patches!

Explanation: [We ask that] even if he fills the corners, there is no Irbuv, for the corners of the middle patch go [perpendicular] to [the middles of the sides of] the square of the outer patches around it (like the picture in Tosfos on Amud A);

It is like a triangle, which is permitted even if there is not a separation of three Tefachim, since it is recognized [that they grow separately]!

Explanation (cont.): [We answer that the leniency of] a triangle does not apply to a patch, and it is not recognized.

Note: Perhaps there is a printing mistake, and the words "we answer that' are missing from Tosfos. I prefer to say that this line is a Dibur unto itself. The Dibur ha'Maschil is "Ein Rosh Tur b'Arugah."

Explanation: Towards the corners, even if he filled the corners, this is not a problem, for he holds that [the leniency of] a triangle applies to a patch.

Explanation: Their leaves above are mixed together. Even though there is a triangle below, it is forbidden, since the leaves above are mixed together, the air is Mevalbel (makes it looks like they grow mixed together. Shabbos Shel Mi - the previous Tosfos said that Shmuel permits a triangle in a patch. Tosfos explains that the Gemara asks that even so, he should not permit a patch among patches.)

Even if they do not nurture from each other, it is forbidden, like we say (Kil'ayim 7:4) one who towers his vine above his grain forbade it, because the air is Mevalbel.

However, in one patch it is known and there is not Irbuv.

It is unreasonable to permit so much permit (a patch among patches) due to a triangle.

Explanation: He leans the foliage of this patch into (towards) itself, and [the foliage] of this into itself, like the Mishnah in Kil'ayim (4:9), brought in Bava Basra (82). An episode occurred in Tzalmon, in which someone leaned the foliage of one row to here...

Also, a Mishnah (Kil'ayim 3:5) says that one may plant gourd and pumpkin in one hole, as long as this leans to one side, and this leans to the other side.

Explanation: If he dug a deep furrow around it on the four sides, what is the law?

If he did not dig deep, both according to Rav and Shmuel it is forbidden to make patches around it. However, if he dug deep the amount of a furrow, i.e. a Tefach, [Ula] asks if this is a Heker, like it is a Heker in a field;

This is like a Mishnah (Kil'ayim 3:3) teaches, that if his field was sown with vegetables [and he wants to plant a row of another vegetable], R. Shimon says, [it is permitted] only if a [fallow] furrow open on both sides [separates them]. I brought this above (85a DH d'Tanan).

Explanation (cont.): Rav Sheshes said, the Irbuv nullifies the row. I.e. it nullifies the interruption of the furrow, and there is no Heker;

"Telem" (furrow) is "Shurah" (row). Bnei Eretz Yisrael call it Telem, and Bnei Bavel call it Shurah.

Explanation: Two rows of pumpkin interrupt between the gourds and Mitzri beans. Gourds and pumpkins are not Kil'ayim, and they are recognized, like the Seifa of this Mishnah (Kil'ayim 3:5) teaches, and I brought it above (DH v'Ha). One may plant gourd and pumpkin in [the same] hole, as long as [they lean to different sides].

Citation (Kil'ayim 3:5 - Mishnah): Similarly, pumpkins and Mitzri beans are recognized. However, gourds and Mitzri beans are Kil'ayim;

However, a row of gourds... is forbidden, for one row of pumpkins does not separate between gourds and Mitzri beans. Just like gourds and Mitzri beans nullify a row of pumpkins in the middle, likewise Irbuv of seeds in the patches nullify the furrow that separated!

The Gemara answers that there is different, for there are big branches [that intermingle]. Here, [what grows from] the seeds are thin, and they do not nullify the depth of the furrow, and it separates.

Explanation: He makes a square patch six by six, and in it another square five by five. There is a separation between the inner and outer [squares] of half a Tefach on each side. He makes a circle in the inner square five by five, and fills the circle with one species.

In the corners of the inner square he sows one species in every corner. Now there are five species.

Implied question: Between the seed in the middle and the seeds in the corners, the separation is Mashehu (almost nothing)!

Answer: There is no concern, for the circle is a Heker, as long as there are three Tefachim between seeds in this corner and [those in] this (an adjacent) corner.

Note: The diagonal of each square in a corner is about 1, so the side of each corner square is about .7, so about 3.6 Tefachim separate adjacent corner squares. Perhaps Tosfos said "as long as" to teach about a smaller circle in the middle, e.g. four Tefachim, like he mentions below. Then he may not totally fill the corners, for if so, slightly less than three Tefachim would separate the corners.

Observation: Similarly, he may make patches around it on all sides like this, for now there are three Tefachim between one patch and another, for the outer square [of one patch] is a half-Tefach, and also the outer square of the other [patch], so together this is a Tefach, and the two borders are [together] two Tefachim, so there are three Tefachim in all.

Question: Why must each patch be six Tefachim? Even if it is five by five, and he makes inside a circle of four, since a circle is considered a Heker (he may seed other species in the four corners)!

Answer: A circle of five [Tefachim] is considered a Heker, but [a circle] of four is not.

Explanation #1: Now [the Makshan] is thinking that he fills all the corners and seeds in the corners of the outer square, until the border, and the only separation between this patch and another is the two Tefachim of the two borders;

The Gemara answers that he leaves fallow in between (the inner square and the border of the patch). He leaves a half Tefach around the inner square totally fallow, and he fills only the corners of the inner square. Now there is distance of three Tefachim [from the seeded part of one patch to that of another patch].

Explanation #2: Or, [the Makshan] knew that he leaves a half Tefach fallow, but he asks why [R. Yochanan] said "[one who wants] to fill his entire garden", for now he does not fill his entire garden;

The Gemara answers that he leaves fallow [in between...], and R. Yochanan meant "to fill his entire garden with vegetables, except for in between (the inner square and the border).

Explanation: Ravina asked Rav Ashi that [the area] for cultivating vegetables next to [another species of] vegetables is six Tefachim;

I.e. this patch that they permitted in it five kinds of seeds, i.e. cultivating vegetables next to another species of vegetables, we view it like a square tablet;

Like a square tablet is permitted, even though there is a mixture of branches and leaves above. If not, it is forbidden, for we permit a mixture only in a patch [seeded] the way it should be. However, a circle of five [Tefachim] is forbidden, for the Tana does not consider it a Heker.

He answers that the Tana does not come to be stringent, rather, to be lenient, to permit a triangle that enters [the patch] and leaves it, for this is permitted in square [seeded areas], but in round areas, a triangle is not recognized [so it is forbidden].

Implied question: Above, it says that [the Heter of] a triangle does not apply to a patch of vegetables!

Answer: It means in between one patch and another, but from a big field to a patch, [the Heter of] a triangle applies. This is the primary explanation of the Sugya.

Question #1: According to Rashi's Perush, "there is the place of the corners" these words "place of the corners" connote unlike he explained.

Question #2: Also, the comparison to a triangle and the entire Sugya is fine according to R. Tam.

Explanation (Rashi): There is the place of the corners, and he can continue this [seeded area] to the north and this to the south, and he need not continue it opposite [the seeded area] in the other patch more than a Tefach.

Rebuttal: If so, they are distanced only the diagonal of [a rectangle] two Tefachim [long] and a Tefach [wide]. This is not even two Tefachim and two fifths, for the diagonal (its excess over the longer side of a rectangle) of two Tefachim by a Tefach is less than [the excess of the] diagonal of [a square] a Tefach by a Tefach.