Eli Genauer: “A Straight Diagram Which is Made Bent” Kilayim 7:1 – Peirush HaMishnayot L’Rambam

Mishnayot Kilayim features many instances where the proximity of one species to another in a field is crucial to establishing the Halacha . Diagrams are most helpful in understanding these spatial relationships. In fact, The Rambam in his Perush HaMishnayot on Kilayim includes over 25 diagrams, 11 in the 3^rd Perek alone. I would like to focus on one of the Rambam’s diagrams and show how it changed  from the time it was penned by the Rambam himself until the diagram we have today in our printed editions. It can be argued that our present diagram might be more “correct” than what the Rambam himself drew, but it begs the question of how much leeway there is in trying to change what the Rambam created. Certainly the same liberties would not be taken with his words.

The first Mishneh in Perek 7 of Kilayim states as follows;

מסכת כלאיים פרק ז

ז,א  המבריך את הגפן בארץ--אם אין עפר על גבה שלושה טפחים--לא יביא זרע עליה, אפילו הבריכה בדלעת או בסילון.  הבריכה בסלע--אף על פי שאין עפר על גבה אלא שלוש אצבעות, מותר להביא זרע עליה.  הארכובה שבגפן, אין מודדין אלא מעיקר השני.

The Mishneh deals with an old vineyard farming technique called “הברכה”.  Basically one takes a branch of a vine, bends it into the ground and then takes the other head of the vine out of the ground in another place from where it will grow a new vine. This affects what seeds which you are allowed to plant near the “new” vine. The final part of the Mishneh deals with a vine which is bent down to form a knee-like point which is called an ארכובה. The Mishneh tells us that in the case involving an ארכובה we measure ( how much space needed to work around it) only from the second root, i.e.,the root of the new vine. As a point of reference, Jastrow explains an ארכובה as “that part of the vine which is bent down and laid in the ground to rise at another place.”

Rambam first explains what is an    שבגפן ארכובה.

והארכובה של גפן צורתה כך 

The Rambam continues as follows

“וימדוד עבודתה שהיא ו׳ טפחים מעיקר השני שנראת הגפן יוצאת משם..... “

You should measure the work area as it regards Kilayim around the second root (עיקר השני) and not the original root (עיקר הראשון) (unless the first root is uncovered.)

You will notice that the Rambam does not use any words to describe what an ארכובה looks like, only the words צורתה כך and a diagram.

Here is the diagram included in the Ktav Yad of the Rambam himself. Oxford, Bodleian Hunt. 117

The bibliographic record includes this statement

‫ בראש כה"י רשימה מאת "שלמה בן דוד בן אברהם בן הגאון רבנו", בה הוא מעיד שכה"י נכתב בידי הרמב"ם.

On the left side of the diagram it says “עיקר ראשון”, meaning the roots of the mother vine. The bend is known as the ארכובה , which leads into the "עיקר שני" and rises up to the new  גפן . It seems from this diagram that the bend takes place underground as it is on the same level as the roots of the new vine. You do not get the feeling that the branch which comes from the first vine is bent downwards in any way before forming the second vine. Also, you do not get a picture of the first vine ever rising from the ground as the second.

We have a similar diagram in a very early manuscript of the Peirush Mishnayot written in 1221-1222 by  Shlomo Halevi, son of Shmuel Hadayan ben Saadyah. It was most likely copied from the original.

Courtesy of Polonsky Digitization Project

Shelfmark: MS. Pococke 260 – 1221- 1222

http://digital.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/inquire/p/0be1b500-376b-40b8-a9ab-3e2a16108529

A close up looks like this

Other manuscripts depict the diagram in a similar manner with the bend still being on the level of the  "עיקר שני". This manuscript is a Hebrew translation of the Rambam’s words.

Vatican ebr. 465 – 14^th century

http://aleph.nli.org.il:80/F/?func=direct&doc_number=000174522&local_base=NNLMSS

and

 http://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.ebr.465

Here is Yemen 13th-14th Century – London Bl. Or. 2217

http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Or_2217

The Polonsky Foundation Catalogue of Digitised Hebrew Manuscripts

Here is London Bl. Or 2226 -  14^th- 15^th century

http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Or_2226

We find a significant change in the following manuscript as the bend is not on the same level as the second root. It seems as if the branch of the first vine is out of the ground, then bent downwards underground where the second root then develops and grows. This is also a Hebrew translation of the Rambam’s words.

Hamburg Codex Hebrew 18   - 1416
&

This may have been the manuscript used for the first printed edition of the Rambam’s Peirush HaMishnayot in Napoli 1492

Courtesy of hebrewbooks.org

                                                       עיקר    ‘ ארכוב   עיקר שני    גפן

For approximately 200 years of printed editions starting from Bomberg in 1521 ( shown below), this and other diagrams went missing. As you can see on the bottom left, there is a space left for a diagram, but no diagram.

Rav Kapach in his introduction to the Mosad haRav Kook edition of the Rambam’s Peirush HaMishnayot Zeraim ( Jerusalem 1963, p. 20) writes about diagrams as follows

"כל הציורים שבמסכת כלאים ובכל המשנה השתדלתי להעתיק בדיוק כפי שהם בכתב יד רבינו"

Included in this edition on this Mishneh is a diagram that shows the beginning of the bend as a straight line going from the עיקר ראשון to the עיקר שני , indicating that the new branch which originated from first vine was never out of the ground. In footnote 5 he attributes the source to Ktiv Yad Oxford. Yet in this same footnote he includes a diagram from his grandfather יחיא בן סלימאן קאפח written in 1925, which shows the branch from the first vine rising out of the ground and then bending downwards back into the ground where the עיקר שני takes root. Even though he had the Ktav Yad of the Rambam himself, he writes that he still prefers the diagram of his grandfather showing the bend angling downwards.

The first time after Napoli 1492 that a diagram was included in a printed edition was in Frankfurt a/m 1722 and looked like this. As you can see we now have a picture of the two vines and also that the branch from the first vine is bent downwards before it goes back into the earth. In this diagram the first vine is now on the right.

In the Vilna Shas and most modern print editions it looks like this with the right side being the original vine. This illustration even tries to show grapes growing on the vines.

Finally, I have a copy of Mishnayot Zeraim printed in Amsterdam by Emanuel Benveniste in 1645. As expected, the printer left blank spaces where diagrams were to be placed. In this case, the owner of the book Rav Avraham Reggio (1755-1846) drew in many of the diagrams himself. Here is what he drew on our Mishneh. It is quite clear that the branch which started the second vine was first out of the ground and then bent downwards into the ground.

gmb 0063

Eli Genauer: A Vineyard That Has a Tail

The Mishnah on Sotah 43a discusses the laws of those who do not have to go to war. This includes a man who has just planted a vineyard. The Mishnah clarifies this to mean not only one who has planted a vineyard, but anyone who has planted any five fruit trees , even of separate varieties.

ומי האיש אשר נטע כרם ולא חללו וגו׳ אחד הנוטע כרם ואחד הנוטע חמישה אילני מאכל, ואפילו מחמשת (ה)מינין

Rashi  limits this to a situation where the fruit  trees are planted in a certain configuration, in a way that it could be considered in the category of a “Kerem” .

אילני מאכל׃ דבהכי הוי כרם, שתיים כנגד שתיים, ואחת יוצא זנב

Five Fruit Trees: For in this way, it is a “vineyard”, two opposite two, and one protruding out as a tail.

Rashi’s comments are a quote from a Mishnah in Kil'ayim 4:6 which defines one type of  Kerem as it relates to the laws of Kil'ayim

הנוטע שתיים כנגד שתיים, ואחת יוצא זנב--הרי זה כרם

Rashi then adds the word “כזה” and gives us this very helpful diagram, the only one included in the entire Bomberg first and second editions.

As you can see,” two opposite two” means two sets of trees facing each other, and the tail which is protruding, is between the two sets at a distance. This diagram is extremely helpful in understanding the words of Rashi. The lines “connecting” the five ‘trees” were most likely added due to the printing techniques of the day. Whether this diagram was included by Rashi himself we will never know, as we have no autograph copies of Rashi’s commentary on the Talmud. In this case, we do not even have a later manuscript of Rashi’s commentary on Sotah 43A.

As I mentioned, Rashi’s comment here is based on a Mishnah in Kil'ayim 4:6. The Meforshim there differ as to what constitutes the configuration of “two opposite two with a tail protruding”. Some of them used words alone to illustrate their opinions, and some used diagrams alone to do the same.

The two main alternatives are drawn as such:

This is the opinion of Rav Ovadiah MiBartenura and Rash (Rav Shimshon of Sens) based on their commentary to Kil'ayim 4:6.

This is the figure in Rambam on Mishnah Kilayim 4:6, the Taz in Yoreh Deah 296:37, and  the opinion of Rashi based on the diagram included in Sotah 43a.

It is relatively easy to understand the Shita of the R. Bertinoro and Rash as proven by the fact that neither of their commentaries contains a diagram on this Mishnah.

Here is what the R. Bertinoro writes

Here is what the Rash writes:

אחת יוצא זנב׃ כגון ג׳ גפנים בשורה אחת, ושתים בּשורה שנייה כנגד שתים הסמוכות מן השלש

They both understand שנים כנגד שנים ואחד יוצא זנב as three vines lined up from top to bottom, two vines lined up in another row facing the top two trees, with the third vine having nothing facing it. 

It is the alternative of the Rambam and Taz (and Rashi in Sotah ) that is hard to understand without a diagram. As a matter of fact, neither of these commentators uses words at all. We only have the comment of כזה or כצורה זו followed by a diagram. Thus you can see how crucial the diagram is in understanding what they hold. 

In this case, we can be certain that what is represented as the opinion of the Rambam in contemporary editions of the Mishnah is in fact what he held. That is because we have available an autograph manuscript of the Rambam on this Mishnah  (Oxford Bodliean Hunt. 117) and it does look a bit like an animal with a tail. ( top diagram)

The manuscript below, Oxford Bodl. Poc. 238, written in 1223, is almost as important as the Autograph Ktav Yad. It was written by Shlomo Halevi, son of Shmuel Hadayan ben Saadyah, and was most likely copied from the original. If you look carefully at this diagram, you will see it differs a bit from that of the Rambam in that the “tail” is higher up and closer in to the “body” of the Kerem. It seems that Shlomo HaLevi tried to make “the vineyard with a tail” look even more like an animal with a tail.

                       

It is possible that when copying over diagrams, the scribes may have used more of their own skill set in trying to depict how something looked, as opposed to when they were just copying over words which they copied exactly as they were written.

These diagrams have important Halachic implications. The first case of the Mishnah is considered a Kerem vis a vis Kilayim. That means in that configuration one cannot plant another species within four Amos of any of the vines. If it's not a Kerem, you can plant another species starting from six Tefachim away. The Meforshim explain that Rashi, the Rambam and Taz would consider the Rav's first case to be not a Kerem and therefore allow planting another species as close as six Tefachim from a vine. According to the R. Bertinoro, the Beit Din would be obligated to uproot such a plant. It works the same in the other way where the Rambam would require uprooting a plant in the second case of the Mishnah according to the R. Bertinoro's interpretation.

10.12.15 Rabbi Genauer has recently published an additional article on this subject, on the Seforim blog, here.