Question: Why does the Gemara see fit to erase 'Af'? why can we not say that it refers to Kil'ayim?

Answer #1: Since Rebi Eliezer says that Orlah does not apply in Chutz la'Aretz, it is not logical to say that we are more stringent by Kil'ayim than by Orlah.

Answer #2: Furthermore, sais the Ri, seeing as Kil'ayim is de'Rabbanan and Chadash d'Oraysa, it could not say 'Af' with regard to Kil'ayim ...

Conclusion: And the Gemara only asks according to the opinion that Orlah is Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai.

Authentic Explanation: Rashi explains that seeds in a vineyar are not subject to Malkos.

Refuted Explanation: But one cannot explain it with reference to seeds in the ground ...

Reason: Since that would not require a Pasuk, because, seeing as it is an obligation of the land, it is obvious that it is confined to Eretz Yisrael.

Implied Question: K'lai Zera'im in a vineyard on the other hand, needs a Pasuk, even though it is an obligation of the land

Answer: Since we would have thought that we learn a Kal va'Chomer from Chadash, seeing as its Isur is a premanent one and it is Asur be'Hana'ah ...

Reason (cont.): Whereas one cannot learn Zera'im with a Kal va'Chomer from Chadash, since K'lai Zera'im of Karka is not Asur be'Hana'ah ...

Source: As the Gemara says, later in the Sugya - 'Since 'K'lai Zera'im in Erets Yisrael is not Asur be'Hana'ah, the Rabbanan did not decree on it in Chutz la'Aretz'.

Question: 'I do not know', Rashi admits, 'from where Rebbi Yashiya learns that one has to have two kinds of seeds plus grape-seeds ...

Clarification: But as far as throwing them in one go is concerned, he learns it from "Lo Sizra Sad'chah Kil'ayim" - which implies that the sowing of the vineyard itself must be Kil'ayim' (until here is the wording of Rashi).

Source: It seems that what Reshiyah requires wheat, barley and grape-seeds, that is specifically with regsrd to being Chayav for K'lai ha'Kerem, but with regard to K'lai Zera'im, one is Chayav on two species, such as wheat and barley - even according to Rebio Yashiyah.

Proof: From the fact that he says 'It is written "Sad'cha" to preclude K'lai Zera'im in Chutz la'Aretz' ...

Proof (cont.): And if Rebbi Yashiyah would not hold of K'lai Zera'im, why would he need "Sad'cha" to preclude Chutz la'Aretz, seeing as even in Eretz Yisrael it is not subject to Malkos? ...

Proof (concl.): It is therefore clear that he does not argue on K'lai Zera'im.

Support: And this is evident in the Yerushalmi (at the end of the eighth Perek of Kil'ayim) where it asks why, according to Rebbi Yashiyah, having said "Sad'cha Lo Sizra Kil'ayim", the Pasuk needs to add Karm'cha Lo Sizra Kil'ayim? - seeing as without grape-seeds he is Chayav because of Kil'ayim of wheat and barley ...

Support (cont.): 'The Chaverim replied - as a warning in that,if they warned him both on "Sad'cha" and on "Karm'cha", he is subject to two sets of Malkos - there where there isKerem together with Kil'ayim.

Support (cont.): Now if Rebi Yashiyah did not hold of K'lai Zera'im, how can the Gemara ask why he needs "Karm'cha", seeing as if not for K'lai Kerem, one would not be Chayav there Malkos on "Sad'cha"? ...

Support (concl.): A clear proof that in his opinion, there is K'lai Zera'im without K'lai Kerem.

Question: Why in fact, does Rebbi Yashiyah require only two species by K'lai Zera'im and three by K'lai ha'Kerem?

Answer: He explains the Pasuk "You shall not sow your vineyard Kil'ayim" to mean that it needs to be Kil'ayim before it enters the vineyard ...

Answer (cont.): Whereas with regards to 'Sad'cha" and K'lai Zera'im such as wheat and barley, they are called Kil'ayim to be Chayav when one plants them in the ground, seeing as the ground itself is called 'Sadeh'.

Halachah: The Halachah, it would seem, is like Rebbi Yashiyah.

Implied Question: Even though we find many Mishnayos that do not hold like him, such as 'Someone who passes a holed plant[pot through a vineyard' (Kil'ayim, 7:8) and 'Someone who covers his vine' (Ibid, Mishnah 5) ...

Answer: Nevertheless, we Pasken like him, as the Gemara states in Perek Mi sh'Meiso (B'rachos, Daf 22a) 'The accepted Minhag is like the following three elders - Like Rebbi Yashiyah regarding Kil'ayim, and like Rebbi Ila'i ... ' ...

Answer (cont.): Consequently, one is permitted to plant underneath a vine, and also to sow K'lai Zera'im in Chutz la'Aretz.

Implied Question: And although Rav Yosef retracted ...

Answer: Abaye resolved the problem (that Rav Yosef raised.

Halachah: Rebbi Shmuel from Aivra learns that it is correct to refrain from planting seeds within three Tefachim of a tree, because it looks as if one is grafting seeds into the tree.

Question: The Gemara in Rosh Hashanah (17a) learns from "Rav Chesed" that, in any event, He tilts the scales towards Chesed?

Answer: By other Mitzvos, when one's deeds are equal, he is like a Benoni, whereas by these Mitzvos, he is a complete Tzadik.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that if someone performs an extra Mitzvah that gives him a majority of merits, one prepares for him in this world a 'good day' y punishing him in this world for his sins - which is a Tikun (a rectification) for him in the world to come ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): And 'Whoever has a majority of sins', about whom the Tana says 'One does bad to him', that means that one prepares for him a bad day' in that one pays him the reward for his Mitzvos here so that 'a bad day' is prepared for him (in the world to come).

Explanation #1 (cont.): 'Rava says' - like we said initially, that one does good to him with the reward of the fruit, but the Keren (the principle) remains ...

Explanation #1 (concl.): Whereas the author of the Mishnah which states 'One does bad to him' is Rebbi Ya'akov, who says that 'There is no reward for Mitzvos in this world'.

Question: However the answer 'The author is Rebbi Ya'akov' implies that until now we did not establish it like Rebbi Ya'akov - but according to Rashi, Abaye too, establishes both the Mishnah and the Beraisa like Rebbi Ya'akov?

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam therefore explains 'The Mishnah speaks where one prepares for him a god day and a bad day' - are both referring to this world, and 'Mativin lo' in the Beraisa is the explanation of the Mishnah ..

Explanation #2 (cont.): In other words, one sometimes makes for him a good day, where he receives the reward for his Mitzvos in this world, and on that day it is considered as if he had fulfilled the whole of the Torah ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): But most of the days of the Rasha he dwells in evil - when his sins exceed his merits.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Whereas 'One does bad to him' - means that sometimes one makes for him a bad day in order to cleanse him of his sins in this world, and on that day it is considered as if he had burnt the whole Torah.

Explanation #2 (concl.): But most of the days of a Tzadik he dwells in good - when his merits exceed his sins.

Explanation #2 (concl.): And this is not like Rebbi Ya'akov, who says that 'There is no reward for Mitzvos in this world'.

Clarification: By Nochrim the opposite is true - Hakadosh-Baruch-Hu counts an evil thought as if he has performed it (later, 40a [See Masores ha'Shas]) ...

Source: As the Pasuk writes in Ovadyah (1) "For the oppression of your brother Ya'akov shame should envelop you and you will be cut off forever" ...

Source (cont.): And we do not find that Eisav die Ya'akov any harm; only the evil thoughts that he planned against him Hakadosh-Baruch-Hu considered it as if he had carried them out.

Clarification (cont.): Whereas the good thoughts of Nochrim Hakadosh-Baruch-Hu does not consider as if he had performed them ...

Source: As the Pasuk writes in Daniel (6) "Until sunset he strove to rescue him" (le'Sheizvuseih) ...

Source (cont.): Meaning that Daryavesh did everything that he could to save Daniel from the lion's den.

Source (concl.): So we see tha, although he rescued him until the evening, the Pasuk writes that he did not rescue him, only that he wanted to rescue him, since it writes "le'Hatzluseih" and not "le'Sheizvuseih" (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim).