Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Shabbos 85

1) PLANTING MULTIPLE SEEDS IN ONE "ARUGAH"

OPINIONS: How far apart must the different types of seeds be planted in one Arugah in order to be permissible? Since a discernible division is necessary between each type of seed, what distance serves to create this visible difference? Furthermore, does "Rosh Tor" ("the top of a triangle" which -- due to the contrast that it creates through the angle which appears when it runs into a row of seeds planted in a different direction -- serves to indicate that the rows of seeds are indeed separate from each other) serve as an effective discernible division?

(a) RASHI maintains that since the seeds draw nourishment from the ground up to 1 1/2 Tefachim away, and since one plant's nourishment must be kept away from the nourishment of another type of plant, they must therefore be a total of *3* Tefachim away from each other. If, however, they are planted at angles to each other, the angle serves as a recognizable differentiation (because of "Rosh Tor") and it is permitted to sow two rows close to each other, even if the distance between them is less than three Tefachim.

(b) TOSFOS agrees that plants draw nourishment from the ground up to 1 1/2 Tefachim away, and that different types of plants must be kept 3 Tefachim apart from each other. Tosfos argues with Rashi and maintains that the distinction of "Rosh Tor" is not utilized for rows of seeds within an Arugah (see Gemara top of 85b). Tosfos therefore draws the original 5-seed Arugah differently (see previous Insight, and Graphic #2).

(c) The RAMBAM in Perush ha'Mishnayos (Kilayim 3:1) and BARTENURA explain, too, that the seeds draw nourishment from the ground 1 1/2 Tefachim away. However, they argue with Rashi and Tosfos and maintain that it is not necessary to keep two different types of plants from drawing nourishment from the same ground. It is only necessary to keep one plant from drawing nourishment from the *other plant*. Thus, they need be separated only 1 1/2 Tefachim. They also permit "Rosh Tor" within an Arugah (like Rashi, and not like Tosfos), and therefore they draw the Arugah differently (see Graphic #2).

(d) The RASH in Kilayim (loc. cit.) also explains that the plant draws nourishment from 1 1/2 Tefachim away and that it must be distanced only from the other plant itself. He does not permit, however, "Rosh Tor" within an Arugah (see Grahpic #2).

(e) The VILNA GA'ON says that whenever an Arugah is *filled* with one type of seed (covering the entire 6-by-6 area of the Arugah), it is permitted to plant other types of seeds on the outer sides of the Arugah (leaving the corners fallow). A fully-planted Arugah is, in itself, a distinguishing indication that this patch was planted separate from the rows of seeds around it (because a 6-by-6 track is a separate piece of land that is normally planted by itself). (See Graphic #2)

(NOTE: All of the pictures printed in our Gemaras are slightly in error. See Girsa section of the Background notes, and Graphics #2 and #3.)

85b

OPINIONS: The Gemara asks if someone dug a "Telem" through the Arugah, covering the length of the entire Arugah, is it "Mevatel the Shurah" or not? The answer to the question is left as a Machlokes between Rav Sheshes and Rav Ashi.

What is a "Telem," and what does it mean to be "Mevatel Shurah?"

(a) RASHI explains that a furrow ("Telem") was dug straight through the middle of the Arugah, from one edge to the other. The question of the Gemara is whether this furrow will be "Mevatel the Shurah," meaning *the laws of Arugah*, so that it will no longer be considered an Arugah in order to be permitted to plant five species of seeds there.

Rashi adds that seeds are planted in that furrow. This is problematic, because if the furrow is being planted it is certainly forbidden to make the furrow to begin with, for it is forbidden to plant more than five types of seeds in the Arugah! It must be that Rashi understood that the furrow was dug deeply into the ground, and since the seeds there grow on the bottom of the furrow, below the level of the other seeds in the Arugah, it is considered to be apparent that those seeds were planted separately from the other seeds in the Arugah.

A field is land in which furrows are dug; an Arugah is land which is sown directly, without digging furrows. The question the Gemara is whether this furrow takes this piece of land out of the state of a garden patch and turns it into a field. (It is not clear what exactly it is about the furrow which turns this Arugah into a field. It seems to be because it is cut into the ground, and not just planted overground from one end of the Arugah to the other.)

(b) TOSFOS explains that it has nothing to do with a furrow that is dug and planted *in* the Arugah. Rather, the question of the Gemara involves a furrow that is dug *around* the Arugah and is a Tefach deep. Is that enough of a distinction to permit planting another Arugah next to this Arugah, without having any additional space between the two?

The "Shurah" refers to the "Telem," or the ditch itself. The Gemara is asking whether that Shurah is Batel (as if it does not exist) because of the Arugah, or if that Shurah is not Batel and therefore serves to separate the Arugah from another.