This mishnah is a direct continuation of yesterday’s mishnah.

Mishnah Two

1)      They may not sow different species of seeds in one bed, but they may sow different species of vegetables in one bed.

2)      Mustard and small polished peas are a species of seed; large peas are a species of vegetable.

3)      If a border was originally a handbreadth high and then it fell in height, it remains valid,   since it was valid at the beginning.

4)      A furrow or water channel which are a handbreadth deep, it is permitted to sow three different species of vegetables, one on one side, one on the other side, and one in the middle.

Explanation

Section one:  In yesterday’s mishnah we learned that in some cases it is permitted to plant five different species in one furrow, six handbreadths by six handbreadths.  Our mishnah says that this refers only to vegetables, because it is customary to plant small patches of vegetables.  However, it does not apply to seeds, because it is customary to plant them in larger areas, and therefore planting many seeds in one small patch is forbidden because it looks too much like kilayim.

Section two:  The mishnah identifies mustard and a certain small species of peas as being species of seeds, whereas it identifies larger peas as being a species of vegetable.

Section three: If the border wall was originally high enough to plant on top of it twelve species and then it started to deteriorate, he does not have to uproot all of the seeds which he planted there, since he planted them with permission.

Section four:  If there is a furrow or water channel that is one handbreadth deep he can plant one species on each side of the furrow, and one species in the middle, because the depth is considered a separation.

In previous mishnayot we learned that vegetables must be separated by a space of six handbreadths to prevent a problem of kilayim. In today’s mishnah we learn that this is only so in a case of a field of vegetables. When it comes to smaller furrows, the rabbis were more lenient and allowed one to distance them by a measure of only 1 ½ handbreadths, the amount of land the rabbis thought that each vegetable used to derive nutrients.

To understand this mishnah we must also recall that if the point of one area planted with one species ends at the beginning of another species, this is permitted.  I have tried to make a drawing below to illustrate this.

In this drawing the triangle can be of one species and the rectangle of another.

Mishnah Three

1)      A furrow of vegetables measuring six handbreadths by six handbreadths: it is permitted to sow in it five [different] types of seeds–four [species], one on [each of] the four sides of the bed, and one in the middle.

2)      If it had a border one handbreadth high, one may sow in it thirteen [different species] three on every border, and one in the middle.

3)      It is prohibited to plant a turnip head in the border since that would fill it [completely].

a)      RabbiJudahsaid: [it is permitted to sow] six [species] in the middle.

Explanation

Section one:  I have drawn an approximation of what this furrow will look like below:

I don’t know how to draw half-filled boxes, so pretend that all boxes marked with “a” are filled with a triangle, such that only a point of this triangle is in contact with the planted area on the outside.  In this way one can plant four different species on the outside and still maximize his planting on the inside.

Section two:  If there is a border that is one handbreadth high, and one handbreadth wide, it turns out that the square is eight handbreadths by eight handbreadths.  He can now sow thirteen different seeds, as you can see in the following drawing:

Again, imagine that the “a” boxes are filled to make triangles, coming to a point at their contact with the rows on the outside.  In this way, he can sow thirteen different seeds, twelve on the outside rows, and a large patch in the middle.

RabbiJudahbelow disagrees with this and holds that one can plant six in the middle.  This could be accomplished by drawing six diamonds in the middle, so that only the angles of the triangles touch the edges of the outside squares, like this.

Each letter forms a diamond (sorry that I’m not cable of drawing this.)  In this way the only the angles of the diamonds touch the squares.

Section three:  Turnip plants produce many leaves. Therefore if they are planted outside, it will look like they have mixed in with the other species and this is prohibited.

Extraordinary People in an Ordinary World Sourcesheet (pdf)
Extraordinary People in an Ordinary World E-shiur (printer-friendly pdf of this page)

The story of Ruth is set in the time in which judges led the people of Israel, a period known for lack of order, government, and cohesiveness among the tribes ofIsrael. The story is set in the midst of the additional crisis of a famine. Against this backdrop we meet Elimelekh and his sons, Makhlon and Kilyon, a well-to-do family from Bethlehem in Judah, who moved to Moab in trans-Jordan. There they settle, the sons marry Moabite women, and subsequently all three men die. They leave behind three women, all of whom seem to be minor characters in the story of these men.

Reading carefully between the lines and utilizing understanding of human nature, we see great complexities in this story; a story of petty and ordinary folks interwoven with the lives of a few extraordinary, kind individuals. So extraordinary were they that the kingship, and ultimately the Messiah, would come from their offspring.

Famine caused the family to leave their community in Bethlehem(translated literally the name of the city means ‘the house of bread/food…’). Reading about their comfortable resettlement in Moab, we become suspicious. Throughout human history people have been forced from their homes due to lack of sustenance. Mass migrations due to famine and war have pushed entire populations into refugee camps, where human beings subsist as shadows at the edges of society. But the story of Elimelekh and his family does not fit into this paradigm. Upon her return to Canaan, Naomi declares, “I left full” (Ruth 1:21), hardly a depiction of a person fleeing in a state of starvation. Indeed, upon their arrival in Moab, the sons marry local women. At a time when marriages were arranged to form ties between families, one has to ask what a supposedly poor refugee could offer to entice a local family to allow him to marry their daughter; unless of course, the family of Elimelekh were not poor refugees but a well-off family that had simply relocated.

Elimelekh was criticized harshly for leaving the land of Israe lby rabbis who, centuries later, faced similar dilemmas. Periods of hardship in Israelled the rabbis to formulate guidelines as to when a person may leave the landof Israel due to economic difficulties and famine (Source 1). The main criterion is the person’s ability to buy food. The rabbis believed that Elimelekh was not suffering of hunger. He left with assets, not destitute due to high market prices. He left because other people in his community were suffering from hunger and were unable to afford the grain in the market. He left so that they could not turn to him with requests for help. Elimelekh was able to provide his family with food; he did not wish to share with those knocking on his door in desperation.

The rabbis view Elimelekh’s death and the deaths of his sons as a punishment for his miserly behavior. However, it is the widowed and bereaved Naomi who is left to cope with her loss. She considered the events as God’s response to her family’s actions. Naomi’s return toBethlehemis colored by her view. She fully accepts the social shame that she would face upon her return and acknowledges the drastic change in her economic status that will be reflected in a matching drop in her social standing.

In contrast with the disloyalty that Elimelekh and his sons displayed by abandoning their community in a time of need, Naomi found that she had acquired two daughters who are the image of loyalty. Ironically, this loyalty complicated matters for Naomi. The Israelites traditionally had an especially negative attitude towards Moabites and Ammonites (Source 2). Bringing home a Moabite daughter-in-law would hardly have bolstered Naomi’s social standing.

Naomi’s attempts to convince her daughters-in-law, Orpah and Ruth, to return to their land and nation were only partially successful. The text does not explicitly tell the reader that Orpah returned home, it delicately says that she kissed Naomi “while Ruth cleaved to her” (Ruth 1:14). Orpah’s behavior is not frowned upon. It made no sense for her to go to a land that did not want her with a mother-in-law who begged her not to follow her. So what about Ruth? We believe Naomi when she says that Ruth and Orpah should turn around. It would be better for them; it would be easier for her to face her hometown without having to explain the Moabite woman who returned with her (Source 3). On the other hand, being lonely and poor, “empty” – as Naomi defines herself, makes for a very difficult old age. Ruth’s loyalty went beyond all that could be expected of her. She sealed the matter by an oath to share Naomi’s nation, God, and fate. As people in Biblical times knew, an oath could not be broken without dire consequences. Now they will face the wagging tongues of Bethlehem together.

The people of Bethlehem are not criticized any more than we would criticize any ordinary, curious, and a bit thoughtless group of people. Against the backdrop of this ordinary town we meet Boaz, a rich landowner in the town with extraordinary views. Upon inquiring about “the new girl” collecting in his field (for more on the commandment to leave grain for the poor, see source 4), he finds out from his work manager that “she is a Moabite girl, the one that returned with Naomi.” (Ruth 2:6) The manager (who seems to be a good representative of the people of the town) identifies her first and foremost as a foreigner. However, Boaz sees something else; what she had done for her mother-in-law after the death of the man that linked them, and all she gave up to join a nation that was foreign to her (notice that his words in Ruth 2:11 recall the words of God to Abraham in Gen. 12:1).

The reader of a short story of this nature might at this point expect, along with Ruth herself, a happy ending. That ending seems long in coming. The harvest season draws to an end, and Ruth’s hopes of ever living better than her current hand-to-mouth situation dims. Now it is Naomi’s turn to intervene. She is the one who decides to push Boaz towards more substantial assistance. Ruth deserves more than handouts, she should have a home, as Naomi tells her “my daughter, I shall seek for you a place of rest that will be good for you” (Ruth 3:1). Ruth may have hesitated to carry out the plan, and Boaz may have used some “creative” ways to get Ruth married (to him), but by the end of chapter 4 we can finally put down the book with the satisfaction that the story has come to its proper conclusion. Ruth, Boaz and Naomi live happily ever after, rewarded with offspring including a great grandchild that will become known as King David.

However, this is a biblical book, and as such we might wonder why the book of Ruth was canonized. As Rabbi Ze’ira asks in Midrash on Ruth (source 5) it does not contain any legal value, it does not elucidate any other issues, why include it? He answers that Ruth was canonized, “To teach you how great is the reward of those who grant loving kindness (hesed).” It does not contain any villains, the people of Bethlehem are ordinary people, the family of Elimelekh is selfish, but no more than most. Orpah only did as she was begged to do. Against all that gray and ordinary human scenery there are three extraordinary individuals; Naomi, Ruth and Boaz who rose above what was commonly expected from human beings; they are people of hesed (loving kindness). It is not coincidental that on the day that the Jewish tradition considers to be the day we received the Torah, the Law, the rabbis included a reading that stresses hesed – loving kindness that goes beyond the letter of the law.

* * *

I would like to thank the many students and alumni of the Conservative Yeshiva with whom I have had the pleasure of studying the story of Ruth over the years. Their ideas, insights and life experiences have enhanced my already great love for this beautiful story. 

Our mishnah discusses whether stalks of one species that lean over stalks of another species constitutes kilayim.

Mishnah Eleven

1)      Stalks of grain which are leaning over other stalks of grain, or vegetable [plants] on other [] vegetable plants, or stalks of grain over vegetables plants or vegetable plants over stalks of grain, all this is permitted, except in the case of the Greek gourd.

2)      Rabbi Meir says: also in the case of the cucumber or Egyptian beans.  But I recognize their   words [as more acceptable] than mine.

Explanation

Section one: In the case referred to in this mishnah, the person properly distanced the different species one from the other.  If the stalks grew or the vegetable plants grew and began to hang over the other species, this does not constitute kilayim, since he distanced them properly.

The only except is the Greek gourd, which evidently can significantly tangle itself up with other species that are growing near it.  Since this will really look like kilayim, he must uproot either the gourd or the other species growing near it.

Section two:  Rabbi Meir adds two other species that also entangle themselves up with other species growing near them.  However, in the end, Rabbi Meir admits that the rabbis’ limiting this to the Greek gourd is more acceptable than his extending it to the cucumber and Egyptian beans.

One might ask: if he tends to agree with the other rabbis, then why does he still make his statement at all? The answer, according to commentators, is that he received his opinion from his teachers, and although he did not actually agree with this opinion, he still stated it in order that it should be preserved for future generations.

The first part of our mishnah is a continuation of yesterday’s mishnah.  Yesterday we learned that if a person wishes to sow his field with different species he must leave an empty plot in between the sown plots. The empty plot must be the size of a bet rova (1/24 the size of a bet seah).  In our mishnah we learn that any plot which can’t be used for sowing seed serves as a break between the different species, even if the plot is not completely empty.

The second half of our mishnah teaches how far one must separate different species in order that they shouldn’t look like kilayim.

Mishnah Ten

1)      Whatever there is within a bet rova [which separates different species] is included in the area of a bet rova:  the space which vine roots consume, a grave, a rock, [all] count in the measure of a bet rova.

2)      [One who wants to sow one type of] grain [in a field of another type] of grain—the measure is a bet rova.

3)      Vegetables within [a field of other] vegetables—the measure is six handbreadths.

4)      Vegetables within [a field of] grain, or grain within [a field of] vegetables—the measure is a bet rova.

a)      Rabbi Eliezer says: vegetables in [a field of] grain—the measure is six handbreadths.

Explanation

Section one:  If there is something within the bet rova plot that prevents one from sowing there, the bet rova still counts as an empty plot serving to separate the two different species.  The first object is the space around a vine that the vine’s roots take up.  Thus if there is a plot planted with a vine, the vine’s roots, which are halakhically considered to take up six handbreadths (we will return to this subject in 3:7), and these six handbreadths count toward the empty bet rova.  So too a grave and a rock all count towards the empty space needed to separate between the different species, even though it is obviously impossible to plant on a grave or on a rock.

Section two:  One who wants to plant one type of grain in a field of another type of grain must distance the two one bet rova from each other.  According to the Rambam this must be a square—meaning 10 1/5 cubits by 10 1/5 cubits.

Section three:  Vegetables are planted in smaller plots, hence one can plant them closer to each other (imagine the tomato or cucumber garden my Dad has behind his house—they’re very good, so if you’re ever inMargate,NJ in the summer..). The distance is only six handbreadths square, far smaller than that for grain.

Section four:  The mishnah now deals with cases where a person wants to put grain in a field of vegetables, or vice versa. According to the first opinion, the two species must be kept at a distance of a bet rova, since one is grain.  According to Rabbi Eliezer, he must distance them only six handbreadths, the measure for distancing vegetables.

Note that according to other opinions, there are other ways to draw this.  In any case, what is most important is that since no two plots of one species are adjacent to each other, it doesn’t look like two different kinds of fields intermingled.

Section four:  A bet-kor, which is 75,000 square cubits, is much larger than a bet-seah, which is only 2500 square cubits.  Nevertheless, Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says that no more than one plot of a different species may be planted there.  This explanation, while if fits the words, is hard to understand.  Therefore, Albeck explains that Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov looks at the whole field as one square plot, meaning that even in a gigantic field such as a bet-kor, one can sow only one type of seed.  He doesn’t allow any plots of another species.

This mishnah teaches how many different species of seed one might sow within one field the size of a bet seah (a field large enough to produce a seah’s worth of grain).

Mishnah Nine

1)      One who wishes to make his field into square plots [each sown] with a different species, he should divide it into twenty-four square plots for a bet seah, a square plot per bet rova, and he may then sow in each whatever species he wants.

2)      If there is one square plot or two [inside his field], he may sow them with mustard, but if there are three he may not sow them with mustard, since it looks like a field of mustard, the words of Rabbi Meir.

3)      But the sages say: nine square plots are permitted, ten are forbidden.

4)      Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: even though the whole of his field is a bet-kor, he may not make within it more than one square plot.

Explanation

Section one:  A bet seah is fifty cubits by fifty cubits, 2500 square cubits.  If you were to divide this size field into twenty-four plots, each being able to contain a quarter of a rova (a rova is 1/6 of a seah), each plot would be 104 1/6 square cubits, 10.2 x 10.2.  Each of these plots is considered a separate field and therefore he can plant whatever seed he wants in each. Since they are distinct plots and the whole field is set up this way, it is clear to anyone who sees the field that this is not kilayim.

Section two:  The mishnah now refers to a case where there are a limited number of plots within a field planted with a single species. Rabbi Meir says that one can plant one or two plots of mustard within the field and this still doesn’t look like kilayim. However, if he plants three plots of mustard this looks like a field of mustard mixed in with a field of grain, and there is a problem of looking like kilayim.  This is a problem specifically with mustard because people don’t typically plant this much mustard within a grain field.  If it was another species, he could plant more plots and they wouldn’t look like a full field of one species intermingled with another.

Section three:  The sages rule more leniently than Rabbi Meir, allowing one to plant up to nine plots of a different species within a field the size of a bet seah.  However, ten square plots looks like a field, and is therefore prohibited. Nine plots can be arranged in the following way so that each plot does not come into contact with each other:

Note that according to other opinions, there are other ways to draw this.  In any case, what is most important is that since no two plots of one species are adjacent to each other, it doesn’t look like two different kinds of fields intermingled.

Section four:  A bet-kor, which is 75,000 square cubits, is much larger than a bet-seah, which is only 2500 square cubits.  Nevertheless, Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says that no more than one plot of a different species may be planted there.  This explanation, while if fits the words, is hard to understand.  Therefore, Albeck explains that Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov looks at the whole field as one square plot, meaning that even in a gigantic field such as a bet-kor, one can sow only one type of seed.  He doesn’t allow any plots of another species.

In yesterday’s mishnah we learned that it is permitted to plant one row of flax next to a field of grain.  In today’s mishnah we learn that one is not allowed to do so with mustard or safflower.

Mishnah Eight

1)      They may not sow mustard or safflower close to a field of grain, but they may sow mustard or safflower close to a vegetable field.

2)      And they may sow close to fallow land or to plowed land, or to a wall made with loose stones, or to a path, or to a fence ten handbreadths high, or to a trench ten [handbreadths] deep and four wide, or to a tree forming a tent over the ground, or to a rock ten [handbreadths] high and four wide.

Explanation

Section one:  Mustard and safflower are dangerous to a vegetable field and therefore the owner will eventually uproot them. Since this is not a beneficial arrangement, one is allowed to sow them there. However, since these seeds are not damaging to grain, he may not sow even a single row next to a grain field.

Section two:  In this section of the mishnah we learn that if there is a break between one field and another, he can plant one species next to a different species.  For instance, if there was fallow land or plowed land separating two fields, he can plant two different species next to each other. A wall, even if its stones are only loosely piled on top of each other, a path, fences and ditches that are ten handbreadths high or deep and four handbreadths wide, also all serve as separators, preventing a problem of kilayim.

The tree which forms a tent over the ground refers to a tree whose branches lie low to the ground. If one species is planted under the branches, he can plant another species outside of the branches, because the branches themselves serve to separate the two species.  Finally, a rock ten handbreadths high and four wide also serves as a separator.

o chec ?e????P?with a row of flax.

Explanation

Section one:  In this case, a point of an angle of a field planted with wheat enters into, or according to other interpretations, is adjacent to, a field planted with barley.  Imagine a triangular field, where one of the corners is next to a square field.  Since it looks like the angle is the end of the wheat field, there is no problem of kilayim here.

Section two:  If his field was of wheat and his neighbor had a field of another species such as barley, he may sow barley next to his neighbor’s field.  This doesn’t look like kilayim in his own field, because the row of barley looks like part of his neighbor’s field.

Section three:  In this case both his field and his neighbor’s field are of wheat.  He is allowed to sow one row of flax between the two fields. Everyone knows that one row of flax is so negligible that no one would plant in this manner in order to grow flax for use. Rather it is readily apparent that the only reason to plant the flax was to check the fertility of his field, whether in the future his field is appropriate for sowing flax. Since every one knows that his purpose in planting this furrow was not for the produce, it does not look like kilayim.

According to Rabbi Shimon it doesn’t make a difference what type of seed the single row consists of—in all cases it is recognizable that he is only planting in order to see if his field can grow this type of species.  It seems that according to Rabbi Shimon people don’t plant rows of single species in order to grow the produce, rather just to check the fecundity of the field.

Rabbi Yose holds that one may do so even within one’s own field. That is, one can plant one row of flax in the middle of a wheat field (or any other type of field), because it is apparent that the row of flax was put there only in order to check the field, whether it can sustain flax.  Anyone seeing such a set up will understand that this is not kilayim.

This mishnah begins to discuss the issue of adjacent fields planted with different types of species.  In the previous mishnah we learned that there must be a separation between fields or rows planted with different species.  In today’s mishnah we learn that sometimes it is okay to have fields of different species adjacent to one another.

We should note that according to the rabbis kilayim is only prohibited from the Torah (deoraita) when one mixes seed in one’s hand and sows them together.  Areas with different species that are adjacent to one another are only prohibited by the rabbis (derabanan) because this looks like kilayim.  Under certain circumstances, when it doesn’t look like kilayim, this is permitted. 

Mishnah Seven

1)      If the point of an angle of a wheat [field] overlaps into a barley [field], it is permitted because it looks like the end of his field.

2)      If his [field] is of wheat, and his neighbor’s is of another species, he may sow [next to the border] some of the same species [as that of his neighbor].

3)      If his field was of wheat and that of his neighbor’s was of wheat, he may sow next to him a row of flax, but not a row of any other species.

a)      Rabbi Shimon says: it is all the same whether he sows flax or any other species.

b)      Rabbi Yose said: even in the middle of one’s field it is permitted to check one’s field with a row of flax.

Explanation

Section one:  In this case, a point of an angle of a field planted with wheat enters into, or according to other interpretations, is adjacent to, a field planted with barley.  Imagine a triangular field, where one of the corners is next to a square field.  Since it looks like the angle is the end of the wheat field, there is no problem of kilayim here.

Section two:  If his field was of wheat and his neighbor had a field of another species such as barley, he may sow barley next to his neighbor’s field.  This doesn’t look like kilayim in his own field, because the row of barley looks like part of his neighbor’s field.

Section three:  In this case both his field and his neighbor’s field are of wheat.  He is allowed to sow one row of flax between the two fields. Everyone knows that one row of flax is so negligible that no one would plant in this manner in order to grow flax for use. Rather it is readily apparent that the only reason to plant the flax was to check the fertility of his field, whether in the future his field is appropriate for sowing flax. Since every one knows that his purpose in planting this furrow was not for the produce, it does not look like kilayim.

According to Rabbi Shimon it doesn’t make a difference what type of seed the single row consists of—in all cases it is recognizable that he is only planting in order to see if his field can grow this type of species.  It seems that according to Rabbi Shimon people don’t plant rows of single species in order to grow the produce, rather just to check the fecundity of the field.

Rabbi Yose holds that one may do so even within one’s own field. That is, one can plant one row of flax in the middle of a wheat field (or any other type of field), because it is apparent that the row of flax was put there only in order to check the field, whether it can sustain flax.  Anyone seeing such a set up will understand that this is not kilayim.

This mishnah deals with a person who wants to plant his field in long rows, each row containing a different species. The mishnah describes how he might do this while avoiding the problem of kilayim.

Mishnah Six

One who wants to lay out his field in long straight rows each sown with a different species:

1)      Bet Shammai says: three furrows of newly broken land.

2)      But Bet Hillel says: the width of aSharonyoke.

3)      And the words of these are close to the words of these.

Explanation

Section one: According to Bet Shammai he has to separate these rows with a gap the size of three furrows which are dug on newly planted land. When he separates the rows by this amount each row is considered to be its own field, since they are recognizably distinct.

Alternatively, others interpret Bet Shammai to mean that each row must be of this width.  When the rows are of this size, each is considered a separate field and hence, with even a small separation between the different rows, it will be recognizable that each row is a separate field.

Section two: According to Bet Hillel, the rows must be separated by the width of the size of the yoke used inSharon, the lowlands inside the coast ofIsrael.

According to the other understanding, the rows must be of this width.

Section three:  The anonymous mishnah notes that there is not that great of a difference between the sizes of the furrows separating the rows (or the size of the rows) mentioned by Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel.