John Mandsager SBL Paper 2013 Mapping the Rabbinic Estate Kilayim and the Transformation of the...

J o h n M a n d s a g e r | 1

Mapping the Rabbinic Estate: Kilayim and the Transformation ofthe Countryside

SBL Annual Meeting, Baltimore, Nov. 24 2013John Mandsager

As de Certeau intriguingly insists, “space is practiced place”:

the stability of topographical elements of a place, such as

fields and gardens, gains multiple layers of signification once

the farmer plants his seeds, digs the weeds, repairs his fences.i

Agricultural spaces are the narratives and the declarations of

the farmer as he attempts to transform the landscape into an

argument: “this is my space, where I gain produce from the soil,

manage the entangled elements of my estate with élan.” In the

early rabbinic case, his declaration also proclaims that “I

fulfill my biblical obligations in the visibly distinct manner

prescribed by the rabbis.” While Hayim Lapinii and Gil Kleiniii

have successfully emplaced the producers of early rabbinic

literature in urban locales,iv this focus on the Roman urbanity

of the early rabbinic movement neglects other spatial imaginings

found in Mishnah-Tosefta. In this paper, I show how the Tannaim

rhetorically emplaced normative Jewish life in the idealized

space of the countryside. Not solely concerned with urban spaces,


the Rabbis of the Mishnah and the Tosefta had their eyes firmly

planted on the hinterland. While most likely an urban movement,

the authors of these texts were not only antiquarian with regards

to an idealized Biblical past wherein the land of Palestine was

owned and farmed in accordance with Biblical law and to support

God and His Temple, but were also readily amenable to their Roman

milieu, which valued honest agricultural labor and efficient and

well-ordered management of agricultural lands. This is not to say

that the Tannaim were versed in Roman agricultural writings, but

it is to suggest that the ways in which Romans advocated the

diligent management of their estates is comparable to the

rigorous attention to spatial detail advocated in Mishnah-

Tosefta. The mapping of the Jewish farm described by the Tannaim,

with its precise and geometric rows of grapevines, vegetables,

and terraces, attempts to create an unequivocally rabbinic

topography that frees the Jewish farmer from suspicion of

violating the prohibition on mixed-species, kilayim. This paper

argues that the rabbinic interpretations of the prohibitions on

mixed-species imagine rabbinic estates that are purposefully


visually distinct from their neighbors, even as the idealized

rabbinic estate mirrors its Roman counterparts.

This paper will place two bodies of literature in comparison

with one another: first, I will discuss examples from the Roman

agricultural manuals; written from the first century BCE to the

second century CE for an elite audience. These treatises,

including Virgil’s “Farming” and Columella’s “On Agriculture,”

inculcate masculine values of rural labor, scientific expertise,

and economic management of agricultural estates. In addition to

providing encyclopedic information about all aspects of running

an estate, Columella, for example, exhorts his readers to visibly

demonstrate their acumen and hard work through maintaining a

constant presence on the estate, by scientifically arranging each

crop, and keeping all corners of the farm in top condition.

Through such acts, the Roman estate owner demonstrates to the

world his devotion to the ancient labor of agriculture, and

demonstrates his personal expertise in the management of his

estate. Second, I will consider one of the bodies of ritual law

presented in the Mishnah and Tosefta, the elaboration of the

biblical prohibition of “mixed-kinds,” or kilayim. In the


legislation of Leviticus 19 and Deuteronomy 22,v certain mixtures

are prohibited: wearing cloth with two different types of thread,

plowing a field with two animals of different species,vi breeding

animals of different species,vii or planting a field with two

varieties of seed. The majority of Mishnah and Tosefta Kilayim

focuses on this latter prohibition. In addition to fitting into

the broader Tannaitic program of claiming expertise in all

aspects of life and the expert interpretation of Torah,viii this

extensive focus on the spaces of Jewish farming and precise

description of the geometry of each section of the farm imagines

rabbinic estates that are demonstrably distinct from the farms of

neighboring Jews and from their Roman models. By putting these

two parallel discourses in conversation with one another, I argue

that their complementarity highlights the distinctiveness of the

rabbinic discourse about agricultural space. While the Tannaim

and Roman agricultural writers advocate ownership, care, and

maintenance of agricultural spaces, the Tannaim attempt to

transform hillsides and valleys into spaces visibly distinct from

their neighbors.

Roman Estates


According to Columella, Romans have “always esteemed the

common people of the country more highly than those of the

city.”ix Labor, particularly with dirt under one’s fingernails,

was held as an acme of Roman masculinity, an embodiment of the

work of one’s forefathers. Thus Virgil exhorts his readers to

return to the days of the ancients: “From the day when Deucalion

threw stones into the empty world, whence sprang men, a stony

race. Come then, and where the earth’s soil is rich, let your

stout oxen upturn it straightaway.”x For Latin authors, putting

to plow to earth in on one’s well-maintained estate epitomized

ideals of masculinity and social status.

Estate ownership was a contested ideal, however: concerns

of economic prosperity, moral rectitude, and pastoral leisure

vied for the attention of the Roman landed gentleman. Some Roman

authors attempted to elevate the moral benefits of estate

ownership over a narrow view of profit or relaxation. Columella

goes beyond attempting to educate his readers in how to make

their estates “profitable by good cultivation,”xi as Varro does:

Columella encourages his readers to be fully committed to the

labor of agriculture and the mastery of its “science.”


For one who would profess to be a master of this science

must have a shrewd insight into the works of nature; he must

not be ignorant of the variations of latitude, that he may

have ascertained what is suitable to every region and what

is incompatible.xii

Among the encyclopedic topics that Columella highlights as not

merely of passive importance but requiring significant scientific

knowledge is that of the soil; Book II of On Agriculture, for

example, provides comprehensive education about soil quality,

chemistry, and composition.xiii In addition, the careful attention

to preserving the best seed for planting and the selection of the

optimum placement of each crop is advocated across the board by

Roman authors.xiv

Columella likewise advocates maintaining an estate that

combines a multitude of intertwined elements: fertile soil, level

meadows and gentle slopes, forests and streams, hills for olives

and grapes.xv As he states, “let it be the chief concern of one

who owns a farm inherited from his ancestors, or of one who

intends to buy a place, to know what kind of ground is most


approved, so that he may either be rid of one that is

unprofitable or purchase one that is to be commended.”xvi

Columella recognizes that not every estate will be fortunate to

have all of these ideal elements,xvii but he emphasizes that the

astute estate-owner will have an eye on his landscape and will

have the knowledge to transform each zone into its most

advantageous space, through his labor and attention. The internal

and external boundaries of the estate are also emphasized:

Columella advocates planting a “living hedge” of thorns to make a

garden safe from “the incursions of man and cattle.”xviii Varro

argues that a strong fence or wall is necessary at the borders of

one’s estate:xix these borders are intended to keep the peace

between one’s own household and one’s neighbors’ servants, and

between landlords, by visually and physically separating the

property and communication between the two estates. In short, a

scientifically laid-out estate, with each seed selected for its

productive value and optimally placed, and secured by fences and

walls, communicates the ideals of the Roman landowner: diligence

and knowledge, moral uprightness and thrift, aesthetic taste and

industrious labor. As we will see below, this transformation of


the countryside into idealized Roman agricultural space has

distinct parallels with the “practiced place” of Tannaitic

agricultural spaces.

Precision and Geometry in Mishnah/Tosefta Kilayim

Let us turn to the imagined spaces of field and garden

described in Mishnah-Tosefta Kilayim, where the Tannaim direct

the farmer’s attention and practice to every square centimeter of

his land.

Following biblical law, two varieties of produce may not be

planted in the same fieldxx or vineyard.xxi In order to abide by

this prohibition, the Tannaim develop an intricate geometry of

field, garden, and vineyard, where each crop is physically kept

separate from its neighbors. In this way, no agricultural space

will be seen as “jumbled,” אאאאאאא,xxii and its produce rendered

unfit for consumption or sale. In place of a farm filled with

“jumbled” crops, the Tannaim imagine an estate with precisely

laid-out plots: for example, furrows three hand-breadths wide,

vineyards surrounded by a precisely measured zone of no-man’s-

land, and garden beds carefully and geometrically arranged so the


maximum number of species could occupy the same space while

maintaining their discrete zones. While Mandelbaum, in his

interpretation of Mishnah Kilayim, claims that the redactors of

Mishnah Kilayim were arguing that it is within “man’s power to

impose order upon the world,”xxiii and that the farmer must avoid

the appearance of “confusion” in his fields,xxiv Mandelbaum

neglects viewing the micro-scale of the position of each planted

seed within the macro-scale of the estate being imagined by the

Tannaim. The rabbinic farmer is to impose order on his landscape,

and to make his actions abundantly clear to anyone viewing his

planting, but I argue that this attention to the geometry of the

farm reveals another aspect of rabbinic spatial thinking. By

advocating such exacting procedures for planting a garden or

training the grapevines of a vineyard, the Tannaim imagine a

landscape that is precisely aligned, without a vine-shoot out of

place, a landscape that is fully transformed into a rabbinic

space. The Tannaim picture Jewish farmers measuring the

countryside, taking a plumb line and a meter-stick over every

inch of soil, creating an estate as planned and elaborate as the

poetry of Virgil or the science of Columella.


Let us consider a basic example. Mishnah Kilayim 2:6,

parallel to Tosefta Kilayim 2:1, discusses the possibility of

planting more than one species in the same field.

If one wanted to make his field into straight sections, with

each section of any variety of produce, the House of Shammai

says, he makes three furrows of plowed land, while the House

of Hillel says, as wide as the Sharon yoke. And the two

opinions are close to one another. (M. Kilayim 2:6).xxv

In order to plant more than one variety of produce on the same

field, opinions attributed to the Houses of Shammai and Hillel

state that he must leave an unplanted strip of earth between each

crop. There is no difference of opinion between the two houses,

according to the editorial statement that concludes the mishnah:

both agree that a substantial visual gap must be maintained

between the crops. What remains is essentially narrow zones of a

variety of produce, kept separate by null spaces in between. The

prohibition of Deuteronomy is upheld – two seeds are not planted

together in the same field – while the field itself is transformed.

This is not polyculture insofar as the soil is not planted with


multiple complementary crops to maximize production, but it is

not the monoculture suggested by the legislation of Deuteronomy.

Rather, a large space is apportioned into smaller distinct

spaces, physically and visually separate from one another,

creating a patchwork of crops and a distinctly rabbinic

landscape.

A much more complicated example follows in Mishnah Kilayim

3:1, which discusses the minimum size of a garden bed and

considers the maximum number of vegetables that could be planted

in the garden bed without transgressing the prohibition on mixed-

kinds. The mishnah begins by describing a garden bed that is six

by six hand-breadths square.

A garden bed that is six by six hand-breadths, five

varieties of seed may be planted within it: four on the four

sides of the garden bed, and one in the middle. (M. Kilayim

3:1a)xxvi

Even this first statement of the mishnah has generated a great

deal of contradictory interpretations in the commentaries.xxvii For

example, the Vilna Gaon envisions a space that has one vegetable


planted in the garden bed, thirty-six hand-breadths square, with

four other vegetables on each side, while the Palestinian Talmud

and other commentators, such as Maimonides,xxviii confine the five

vegetables to the garden bed itself, with ingenious gaps left

unplanted between the vegetables. (See the diagrams on the

handout.) In either case, but more strongly following the

interpretation of Maimonides, we see the Tannaim paying minute

attention to each square hand-breadth of the garden. Each

vegetable has its place, and as long as creeping vegetables such

as cucumbersxxix or bushy leaved plants such as turnipsxxx do not

create the appearance of entanglement between the vegetables, the

pristine garden will graphically illustrate the attention to

detail and spatial organization imagined by the Tannaim.

Such attention to the garden and its visual precision is

emphasized by Latin authors as well. Columella, in his poetic

paean to the garden in Book 10 of his On Agriculture, exclaims

let him take

The shining hoe, worn by the soil, and trace

Straight, narrow ridges from the opposing bounds


And these across with narrow paths divide.

Now when the earth, its clear divisions marked

As with a comb, shining, from squalor free,

Shall claim her seeds, ‘tis time to paint the earth

With varied flowers, like stars brought down from heaven.xxxi

Columella “paints” the garden with abundant flowers and

vegetables, each carefully placed in “straight narrow ridges”

intersected by footpaths: an aesthetic and abundant delight.

While Columella certainly emphasizes the aesthetic beauty of a

well-tended garden, he is careful to detail the preparation and

layout of the garden: the Tannaim emphasize the avoidance of the

appearance of “jumbled” and prohibited planting but also train

the attention of the farmer and any potential visitor on the

precise grid of the garden and its furrows. We see two discourses

of the visual layout of agricultural space, both of which argue

for careful attention to the geometry of the crops and the visual

impact of carefully planned and maintained agricultural spaces.

These geometric configurations of field, vineyard, and

garden not only provide the rabbinic farmer with the means to

abide by the prohibitions of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, but they


also provide a visual sign that the space in question is being

farmed correctly. With his grid of carefully laid out crops, the

rabbinic farmer can avoid the suspicion of transgressing the

biblical commandment. Such visual signification is emphasized in

Mishnah-Tosefta. For example, in Mishnah Kilayim 2:7, we find a

farmer whose crop – wheat – not only abuts his field of barley

but actually penetrates the edge of the barley field. “If the

corner of the wheat field enters into the barley field, it is

permitted because it appears to be the end of the [wheat]

field.”xxxii This apodictic ruling goes to the heart of the

Tannaitic interpretation of the biblical prohibition on sowing

two varieties of seed together: as long as the two crops – wheat

and barley in this case – are visibly distinct from one another,

the forbidden mixture is avoided, even if the corner of one field

penetrates the border of another.

The different varieties of produce, even as they are planted

in geometrical configurations that keep each variety separate

from each other, must appear to be different. Thus, Mishnah

Kilayim 2:8 prohibits the planting of mustard or safflower next

to a field of grain; when ripe, all three crops are a similar


yellow color. The mishnah permits the planting of mustard or

safflower next to a green vegetable, since the visible

distinction between the two crops is maintained. In the case of

the field of grain, even though the grain is planted separately from the

safflower, the mark of distinction between the two crops is not

distinct enough to avoid the suspicion that the farmer is not

scrupulous with regard to his adherence to biblical law, as

mediated by rabbinic interpretation. Remarkably, in Mishnah

Kilayim 3:5, we find a case where two seeds, a gourd and a

cucumber, are planted in the same hole, and this planting is

permitted, because the two vines can be trained in different

directions.xxxiii

A man may plant a cucumber and a gourd in one hole, but only

when one will lean to one side, and the other will lean in

the opposite direction. And the “crown” of this one leans to

one side, and the “crown” of the other leans to the other

side, since everything the sages forbid they only decreed

because of the appearance of the eye - אאאאא אאאא. (M.

Kilayim 3:5).xxxiv


Here, even though the cucumber and the gourd planted in the same

hole would seem to be a transgression of the prohibition on

mixed-species, the transgression is avoided because the two plants

appear to be growing separately from each other. Perception or

more precisely, imagining other people’s perception, in part

drives the development of the law: how do the actions of the

rabbinic farmer appear to his neighbors, and are they distinct enough

to curtail any suspicion or confusion about his actions. The

careful arrangement of the plants in a garden or vineyard creates

an intricate visual signal to the imagined neighbors of the

rabbinic farmer.xxxv By precisely aligning his crops, his

agricultural spaces look different, and this care and spatial

awareness can be read by others, the others whom the Tannaim fear

suspect that the rabbinic farmer is neglecting his biblical

obligations.

Conclusion

While the Tannaim can fruitfully be seen part of the urban

local elite of Late Antique Palestine, as Lapin has argued,xxxvi

and while the urban spatial world is prominent in many areas of


Mishnah-Tosefta, such as Shabbat, Eruvin, Kiddushin, etc., as has

been shown by Klein and others,xxxvii attention to the spaces of

order Zera’im, reveals the imprint of rabbinic spatial thinking

on the Galilean countryside. Consideration of Mishnah-Tosefta

Kilayim, in particular, with its intricate geometry of cucumbers

and melons, leeks and onions, grain and grapes, reveals an

extensive topography, from field to garden, vineyard to terrace,

that is envisioned by the Tannaim as a network of spaces that

communicate the presence, attention, and careful management of

the idealized rabbinic farmer. And even as this idealized farmer

is envisioned as measuring each hand-breath in his garden, when

we zoom out to a larger magnification, we see this network of

spaces as Roman agricultural writers did, as an interconnected

realm that, taken together, constitutes a well-oiled economic and

social engine, the estate. Just as we can see the early rabbis

marking out rabbinic spaces in the cities and towns of the

Galilee, in Mishnah-Tosefta Kilayim we find the Tannaim laying

out imagined estates across the hills and valleys beyond the town

borders. The care and attention communicated by these

agricultural spaces would not be foreign to the eyes of Roman


agricultural writers; but the distinctive spatial practices

advocated by the Tannaim would create spaces demonstrably

different than their Roman equivalents, transforming the

landscape into visibly rabbinic spaces.


A garden bed that is six by six hand-breadths, five varieties of seed may be planted within it: four on the four sides of the garden bed, and one in the middle. (M. Kilayim 3:1a)

(E) is 6 by 6 handbreadths square.

The entire garden is 6 by 6 handbreadths square. Thus, (A), (B), (C), and (D) are 1 by 5 handbreadths.


If the corner of the wheat field enters into the barley field, itis permitted because it appears to be the end of the [wheat] field. (M. Kilayim 2.7)

A man may plant a cucumber and a gourd in one hole, but only whenone will lean to one side, and the other will lean in the opposite direction. And the “crown” of this one leans to one side, and the “crown” of the other leans to the other side, sinceeverything the sages forbid they only decreed because of the appearance of the eye - אאאאא אאאא.

(M. Kilayim 3:5)

i Michel De Certeau, The Practice of Everyday Life, translated by Steven Rendall (Berkeley,Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press, 1984), 117.ii Hayim Lapin, Rabbis as Romans: The Rabbinic Movement in Palestine, 100-400 C.E. (Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 2012).iii Gil P. Klein, “Oral Towns: Rabbinic Discourse and the Understanding of the Late Antique Jewish City,” in Imagining the City, Volume 2: The Politics of Urban Space, edited by Christian Emden, Catherine Keen, and David Midgley (Bern: Peter Lang, 2006); idem, “The Topography of Symbol: Between Late Antique and Modern Jewish Understanding of Cities,” Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschicte 58:1 (2006): 16-28; idem, “Torah in Triclinia: The Rabbinic Banquet and the Significance of Architecture,” The Jewish QuarterlyReview 102:3 (2012): 325-370; and idem, “Rabbinic Urbanism: Reorienting the Roman Cityscape,” unpublished paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, Chicago IL, Nov. 18, 2012.iv The urban spatiality of the early rabbinic movement has also been explored by Fonrobert and Baker. See Charlotte Elisheva Fonrobert, “From Separatism to Urbanism: The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Rabbinic ‘Eruv,” Dead See Discoveries 11:1 (2004): 43-71; Cynthia M. Baker, Rebuilding the House of Israel: Architectures of Gender in Jewish Antiquity (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2002); idem, “Imagined Households,” in Religion and Society in Roman Palestine: Old Questions, New Approaches, edited by Douglas R. Edwards (New York and London: Routledge, 2004), pp. 113-128.v Lev. 19:19; and Deut. 22:9-11. There is voluminous scholarly work on the distinctions advocated by the Hebrew Bible and on the prohibition of mixed-kinds inparticular. See, for example: Samuel Cooper, “The Laws of Mixture: An Anthropological Study in Halakhah,” in Judaism Viewed from Within and from Without: Anthropological Studies, edited by Harvey E. Goldberg (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1986); Calum M. Carmichael, “Forbidden Mixtures in Deuteronomy XXII 9-11 and Leviticus XIX 19,” Vetus Testamentum 45:5 (1995): 433-448; Jacob Milgrom, “Lawand Narrative and the Exegesis of Leviticus XIX 19,” Vetus Testamentum 46:4 (1996): 544-548; Mary Douglas, “Justice as the Cornerstone: An Interpretation of Leviticus 18-20,” Interpretation 53 (1999): 341-350; and Oded Borowski, Every Living Thing: Daily Use of Animals in Ancient Israel (Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press, 1998).vi Only in Deut. 22:10.vii Only in Lev. 19:19. viii See, for example: Charlotte Elisheva Fonrobert, Menstrual Purity: Rabbinic and Christian Reconstructions of Biblical Gender (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000); Chaya T. Halberstam, Law and Truth in Rabbinic Literature (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press,2010); and Mira Balberg, “Rabbinic Authority, Medical Rhetoric, and Body Hermeneutics in Mishnah Nega’im,” AJS Review 35:2 (2011): 323-346.ix “That true stock of Romulus, practiced in constant hunting and no less in toiling in the fields, was distinguished by the greatest physical strength and, hardened by the labors of peace, easily endured the hardships of war when occasion demanded, and always esteemed the common people of the country more highly than those of the city” (Columella, Re Rustica, I, Preface, 17, Loeb edition volume 1, pg.15). Johnstone concludes that for Columella, “the only occupation worthy of a freeman and a gentleman was agriculture.” Paul H. Johnstone, “In Praise of Husbandry,” Agricultural History 11:2 (1937): 80-95, pg. 81.x Virgil, Georgics, I.61-66, Loeb revised edition, Vol. I, pg. 103. See also Columella, Rei Rusticae, I, Preface, 17; and Cato, De Agri Cultura, I.4.xi Varro, Rerum Rusticatum I.1.2, Loeb edition pg. 161

xii Columella, Rei Rusticae I, Preface, 22, Loeb edition volume 1, 19.xiii “More than any other Roman author, Columella was concerned with the soil and the way it should be used…Structure, texture and acidity or alkalinity were far better guides [than mere color, as suggested by his contemporaries] to the productivity of the soil.” Lois Olson, “Columella and the Beginning of Soil Science,” Agricultural History 17:2 (1943): 65-72, pg. 65.xiv See, for example Virgil (Georgics I.197), Varro (RR I.52), and Columella (RR II.9.10-13 – Columella explicitly quotes Virgil I.197-200 here).xv Columella, Rei Rusticae, I.2.3-5, Loeb edition volume I, pp. 41-43.xvi Columella, Rei Rusticae, I.2.2, Loeb edition volume I, pg. 41.xvii Columella, Rei Rusticae, I.2.5, Loeb edition volume I, pg. 43.xviii Columella, Rei Rusticae, XI.3.2-3, Loeb edition volume III, pg. 131. He cites Democritus, who argues that with regard to one’s garden plot, a strong defense is inadvisable, because of the short longevity of brick and the expense of stone. Columella solves this problem with the suggestion of the thorn hedge. For further description of the “living hedge,” see Columella, Rei Rusticae, X.361-2; 370, Loeb edition volume III, pg. 39; as well as John Henderson, “Columella’s Living Hedge: The Roman Gardening Book,” The Journal of Roman Studies 92 (2002): 110-133, pg. 110.xix Varro, De Re Rustica, I.14.1-4; I.15, Loeb edition pg. 217-219.xx So Lev. 19:19.xxi So Deut. 22:9.xxii Mishnah Kilayim 5:1; and Tosefta Kilayim 3:6.xxiii Irving Mandelbaum, A History of the Mishnaic Law of Agriculture: Kilayim: Translation and Exegesis (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982), 4.xxiv Ibid., 5.xxv אאאאא אאאאא אאאא אאא אאא אאא אאא אאא אאא א' אאאא אאאאא אא אאאא אאא אאאא א' אאא MS Kaufman. The Tosefta parallel is .אאאא אאאאאא אאאאאאא אאאא אאא אאאאא אאאאא אאאslightly different: “If one wants to make his field into rows of grain and rows of many varieties of produce, he makes three furrows running from the beginning of thefield until its end. R. Leazar b. R. Shimon and Abba Yosi ben Hanan say the rule isthe length of fifty amot. How wide? As full as the Sharon yoke, similar to the vineyard yoke. The furrows’ beginning is as this size, even if its end is not this size.” (Tosefta Kilayim 2:1, Lieberman, Tosefta Zera’im, 207-208).xxvi אאאאא אאאא אאא אא אאא אאאאא אאאאאא אאאאא אאאא אאאאאאאא אאאאא אאאאא אאאאא אאאאא.MS Kaufman .אאאא אאאאאxxvii אאא אא אאאא אאאא אאא אאאאאא אאאאא אאאא אאא אאאא אא אא אאאא אאאאא אאאא אאאאא. אא MS Kaufman. See .אאא אאא אאאא אאאא אאאאא אאאא אאאאא אאאאא. א' אאאא אאא' אאא אאאאאPT Kilayim 3.1; the commentary of the GRA, ad loc.; Maimonides, Code, Mixed-kinds, 4:9;the Sens commentary to Maimonides, ad loc.; Maimonides, Commentary to the Mishnah, ad loc.;etc.xxviii E.g. Maimonides, Commentary to the Mishnah, ad loc.; and Albeck, Mishnah Zera’im, 108. Mandelbaum prefers the interpretation of the GRA: “M. nowhere says that the different kinds must be separated from one another, and so does not imply that the beds are to be arranged in such complex patterns. We therefore prefer the more straightforward explanation of GRA” (Mandelbaum, Kilayim, 347 n. 3).xxix Cf. m. Kilayim 2:11.xxx Cf. m. Kilayim 3:7b.xxxi Columella, Rei Rusticae, X.91-97, Loeb edition volume III, pp. 13-15.

xxxii “If the garden bed had a border with a height of one handbreadth, thirteen [varieties] may be planted within it: three on each border and one in the middle. He shall not plant the head of the turnip in the border, because it fills it up. R.Judah says: Six in the middle.” (M. Kilayim 3:1b) אאא אאא אא אאאאא אאאא אאאא MS Kaufman. See PT Kilayim 3.1; the .אאאאאאאא אאאא אאאא אאאא אאאאא אאאא אאאאאcommentary of the GRA, ad loc.; Maimonides, Code, Mixed-kinds, 4:9; the Sens commentaryto Maimonides, ad loc.; Maimonides, Commentary to the Mishnah, ad loc.; etc. xxxiii I discuss this mishnah elsewhere in the context of a more extensive analysis of the suspicious gaze of the neighbor in Mishnah Zera’im. John Mandsager, “Building a Fence around the Torah: Fencing and Other marks of Distinction in Tannaitic Literature,” unpublished paper presented at the Association for Jewish Studies Conference, Chicago IL. December 2012; and idem, “Jewish Spaces in the Countryside: Social and Exegetical Frameworks for Rabbinic Farming in the Mishnah,”Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University, 2014. xxxiv .אאאא אאא אאאאא אאאאא אאאא אאאא אאא אאאא אאאא אא אאאא אאא אא אאא אאאא אאא אא .אאאא אאא אאאא אאאא אאאא אאאא אאאא, אאא אא אאאאא אאאאא אא אאאא אאא אאאא אאאאא אאאאSo the printed edition. Mss. Kaufman and Parma omit “And the ‘crown’ of this one leans to one side, and the ‘crown’ of the other leans to the other side, since everything the sages forbid they only decreed because of the appearance of the eye.”xxxv In m. Kilayim 7:2, the rabbinic farmer is forbidden from planting a new grapevine adjacent to a dead vine: even though the two are the same species – one living, one dead – in this case, the living vine appears different from the dead one, and thus the rabbinic farmer would appear to be transgressing the prohibition on mixed-species. As opposed to m. Kilayim 3:5, where ostensible transgression is permitted because the gourd and the cucumber appear separate from one another, in m.Kilayim 7:2, permitted action is forbidden because the two vines appear to be different species growing together. (See Mandsager, “Building a Fence,” 8)xxxvi Lapin, Rabbis as Romans, 5.xxxvii Cf. Klein, “Oral Towns”; Fonrobert, “From Separatism to Urbanism”’; Baker, Rebuilding the House of Israel; and idem, “Imagined Households.”

John Mandsager SBL Paper 2013 Mapping the Rabbinic Estate Kilayim and the Transformation of the...

Documents

Transcript of John Mandsager SBL Paper 2013 Mapping the Rabbinic Estate Kilayim and the Transformation of the...