Before us is Mishnah 4 in the second chapter of Maseches Eduyos, containing three testimonies given over by Rabbi Yishmael: "Amar Rabbi Yishmael sheloshah devarim lifnei chachamim b'kerem b'Yavneh" - Rabbi Yishmael stated three things before the Sages in the vineyard at Yavneh. Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha was a contemporary of Rabbi Akiva, in the generation after the destruction, and he appears to be among the authors of the thirteen principles by which the Torah is expounded. His three testimonies are unrelated to one another, and each one touches on a different subject from among those scattered throughout Shas.
What is the "vineyard at Yavneh"? According to the common explanation, this is a title for the academy of the great Sages who functioned as part of the Sanhedrin after it was relocated to the town of Yavneh: they sat in orderly rows and columns, like the rows of vines in a vineyard, until their assembly looked like a kind of vineyard of Torah scholars.
The first testimony - a beaten egg on top of a vegetable of Terumah:
The wording of the Mishnah: "Al beitzah terufah shehi nesunah al gabei yerek shel terumah, shehi chibur" - a beaten egg placed on top of vegetables of Terumah while they are cooking has the halachic status of a connection.
To understand this, we must first introduce the rule of how tumah spreads: at each and every transfer, the tumah descends one level. An av hatumah that touches a grape at the top of a pile of grapes - that grape becomes a rishon, the grapes touching it become a sheni, and those touching them become a shelishi if they are Terumah; and if they are not Terumah, they do not become tamei at all, and the tumah spreads no further. Each grape is a station unto itself, and the tumah decreases at every stage.
However, there is a halachic concept called 'chibur' (connection): when items become one unified entity, whatever touches one of them conveys tumah to everything joined to it to the very same degree.
Hence the question of the Mishnah: what is the law regarding someone preparing a vegetable omelet? The vegetables are Terumah and can become a shelishi to tumah, whereas the egg is chullin and can only become a sheni. A tevul yom, whose status is that of a sheni to tumah, touched the omelet, and touched only the egg portion - do the vegetables mixed and joined within it become tamei and become a shelishi? If this is a connection, then the egg and the vegetables are a single unit, and one who touches the egg is as though he touched the vegetables; and if this is not a connection, the vegetables remain tahor.
The Mishnah rules that this is a connection. The egg comes to serve the vegetables and to be eaten together with them, and it also literally binds them in practice: pulling the omelet pulls the egg, and the vegetables woven into it come along with it. Therefore, when a tevul yom touches the egg, the vegetables embedded in it become tamei as well. This is the first part of the novel teaching.
And he further says: "K'min kova" - like a sort of cap - this is not a connection. If a kind of bubble rose up in the egg, and an air space was created above the vegetable beneath it, there is no complete absence of contact here, but rather the contact is loose. This resembles a stiff hat resting on the head without being pressed down: it is on the head, but it is not attached to it. If the egg were removed, the vegetable would remain in place. Therefore, even though there is contact, the egg is not considered a connection to the vegetable, and the vegetables beneath that cap-shaped bubble do not become tamei, even if a tevul yom touched the egg.
The second testimony - a stalk of grain in the harvest:
"V'al shibolet shebakatzir, v'roshah magia lakamah - im nitzeres im hakamah, harei hi shel ba'al habayis, v'im lav, harei hi shel aniyim" - and concerning a stalk in the harvest whose top reaches the standing grain: if it can be harvested together with the standing grain, it belongs to the owner, and if not, it belongs to the poor.
The background to this testimony is learned in Maseches Peah, and it relates to the mitzvah of shikchah (forgotten produce), which is both a positive and a negative commandment at once: to leave over the forgotten portions of the crop and not to return for them. Shikchah comes about in two ways:
Forgetting a bundled sheaf: One who gathers sheaves to bring to the threshing floor and forgot one or two sheaves behind him may not go back and take them. There is a positive commandment to leave them, and a negative commandment against returning to them.
Forgetting standing grain: A reaper who passed over a patch or skipped a spot, and halachically he should have gone back to what he skipped over, and he forgot - this too falls under the category of shichechah, and he may not return to it but leaves it for the poor.
The question is how far a person may go back to grain that he forgot and take it home, and from what distance he is obligated to leave it for the poor. It was already known that if one bends over the forgotten standing stalk and it reaches the rest of the grain that has not yet been cut, it still belongs to the owner. Rabbi Yishmael's novel teaching is this: even if the top of the stalk that he forgot or skipped over reaches the standing grain, that is not enough. He must also be able to cut the two of them together, in one and the same grasp, at the time that he gathers in all the grain. And if there is no way to cut them together, then even though its top reaches, it belongs to the poor.
Explanation of the wording of the Mishnah:
"V'al shibbolet shebakatzir" - a stalk that is part of the harvest.
"V'rosha magia lakamah" - even if the top of the stalk that was skipped over can bend and touch the standing grain that has not yet been reached.
"Im nitzeres im hakamah" - provided that the two of them can be cut together, in a single grasp.
"Harei hi shel ba'al habayis" - the owner of the field may keep it for himself.
"V'im lav, harei hi shel aniyim" - but if the two cannot be cut at one time, then even though the top of the stalk reaches, this is not sufficient closeness, and he must leave it for the poor.
The third testimony - a small garden surrounded by an aris:
"V'al ginah ketanah shehi mukefes aris - im yesh bah kimlo botzer v'salo mikan, umlo botzer v'salo mikan, tizara; v'im lav, lo tizara" - and concerning a small garden that is surrounded by an aris: if it has room for a grape harvester and his basket on this side, and a grape harvester and his basket on that side, it may be sown; and if not, it may not be sown.
This subject belongs to Maseches Kilayim, to one of the five mitzvos included in the prohibition of mixing species - kilei hakerem, the prohibition against sowing grain or vegetables in a vineyard. The distance required between the grain or vegetables and the vines depends on the status of the vines:
Individual vines: six tefachim, which is one amah.
A vineyard: four amos surrounding the entire vineyard.
What defines a vineyard? The minimum is five vines in the following configuration: four vines forming a square, two opposite two, and a fifth vine standing in a straight line with one of the sides of the square. This configuration constitutes a vineyard, and one may not plant grain or vegetables within four amos of any of its vines. Without this configuration, even if there are five vines that are not arranged in this order, their status is that of individual vines, and a distance of one amah is sufficient.
Later in the tractate an intermediate case appears - an 'aris' (ayin, reish, yud, samech), which is a trellised vine. In the simple case: five vines standing in a single row, which do not have the square configuration that would make them a vineyard, but which are spread out over a wall or a booth. Intuitively, what we have here is not merely a straight line, but a kind of two dimensional plane: the width of the five vines and the length of the trellising along that fence. The rule is that even though this is not a vineyard, one may not sow beneath the aris or within it, since this resembles sowing inside a vineyard overhead. This is an intermediate case.
And now the question of the Mishnah: a small garden enclosed by walls on all four of its sides, containing five vines - one on each side and two on one of the sides - and the vines are trellised on the walls and face outward rather than inward. One who stands inside the garden and looks up sees only sky, and does not see vines above his head, but he does see the vines trellised on the walls around him. Since there is a feeling here of standing inside a cluster of vines, what is the measurement of the garden required so that the law of aris will not apply to it and sowing in it will be permitted, since it is neither under an aris nor in a vineyard?
According to the rules explained until now, one might have said: there are no five vines here in a square configuration, so this is not a vineyard; and there is no aris here either, since there are not five vines in one direction - and if so, a distance of six tefachim, one amah, from the base of each vine would suffice. To this Rabbi Yishmael says that it is not so: a small, tight garden is too crowded, and one may not sow in it at all on the basis of the ordinary distance.
So what is the required measurement? Four amos by four amos. In a garden of that size one can move away from the vines on both sides and plant in the middle: if the vines are next to the walls and directly opposite one another on the eastern and western walls, one draws back one amah from the west and one amah from the east - two amos of distance - leaving two amos in the middle, a kind of inner square, in which planting is permitted.
Rabbi Yishmael does not express this in terms of amos, but in terms of harvesting: the botzer is the one who picks the grapes (picking grapes is called betzirah), and his sal is the basket into which he puts the grapes - a phrase used elsewhere as well in matters of grape harvesting and vessels. The measurement: the harvester takes up one amah, and his basket one amah, so the harvester and his basket together are two amos. Two amos on this side and two amos on that side - four amos in all. It emerges that as long as there are four amos from east to west and four amos from north to south, one may plant inside that wall-enclosed garden, even though the vines are trained above the walls and it looks like an aris garden, provided that he keeps six tefachim, one amah, away from each and every vine at ground level.
Explanation of the Mishnah's wording:
"V'al ginah ketanah" - testimony concerning a small garden surrounded by walls.
"Shehi mukefes aris" - aris vines are trained on all four of its sides, five vines in all.
"Im yesh bah kimlo botzer v'salo mikan" - if the garden has room for a harvester and his basket on one side, which is two amos.
"U'mlo botzer v'salo mikan" - and likewise a harvester and his basket on the other side, another two amos - four amos from side to side, both north-south and east-west.
"Tizara" - it is permitted to plant in the middle, provided that he does not plant within six tefachim, one amah, of the base of any of the vines.
"V'im lav, lo tizara" - and if there is no space of four by four in the middle of the garden, one may not plant grain or vegetables in it at all.
And the reason is this: the garden is surrounded by vines, and the space is extremely tight and crowded. Therefore, even though technically the one planting is standing six tefachim away from the base of all the vines - Rabbi Yishmael's tradition is that its status is that of an aris, and one may not plant in it at all.