משנה: בְּהֵמָה עִם בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה עִם חַיָּה בְּהֵמָה עִם חַיָּה וְחַיָּה עִם בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה עִם טְמֵאָה וּטְהוֹרָה עִם טְהוֹרָה טְמֵאָה עִם טְהוֹרָה וּטְהוֹרָה עִם טְמֵאָה אֲסוּרִין לַחֲרוֹשׁ וְלִמְשׁוֹךְ וּלְהַנְהִיג. הַמַּנְהִיג סוֹפֵג אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים וְהַיּוֹשֵׁב בַּקָּרוֹן סוֹפֵג אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים. רִבִּי מֵאִיר פּוֹטֵר. וְהַשְּׁלִישִׁית שֶׁהִיא קְשׁוּרָה לִרְצוּעוֹתֵיהֶן אֲסוּרָה. MISHNAH: Domestic animal with [different] domestic animal and wild with [different] wild animal, domesticated with wild and wild with domesticated animal, unclean with [different] unclean and clean with [different] clean animal, unclean with clean and clean with unclean animal, all these are [combinations] forbidden for ploughing, drawing, and leading37The source of this Mishnah is Deut. 22:10: “Do not plough with an ox and a donkey together.” It is forbidden to take animals of two different species under a common yoke either for work (ploughing or drawing a cart) or to lead them. The Mishnah mss. of the Maimonides tradition start with: “When was this said”, referring to the end of the previous Mishnah that “Kilaim of animals may be raised and kept; they are only forbidden to be mated”; this is only for “domestic animal with domestic animal, wild with wild animal, domesticated with wild and wild with domesticated animal, unclean with unclean and clean with clean animal.” For Maimonides, the prohibition of ploughing, etc., refers only to combinations of unclean (i. e. animals that may not be eaten) and clean (animals that may be eaten) animals. The text of the Halakhah gives some support for such a reading since it starts with a discussion of mating different species..
The driver absorbs the forty50This Mishnah deals with a cart (Greek κάρρον, τό, “car, cart”; cf. κάρρος, ὁ, Latin carrus, carrum, “two-wheeled cart”) drawn by two animals of different species. “Absorbing the forty” means being punished by 39 lashes. and the one sitting in the cart absorbs the forty. Rebbi Meïr frees him from prosecution51This reading is supported by Sifry Deut. 231, Babli Baba Meẓi‘a 8b, against the opinion of Samuel who exchanges the positions of R. Meïr and the rabbis.. A third animal tied to their harness is forbidden52If a cart is drawn by two animals of the same species and a third animal is tied not to the cart but to the harness of the other two, it is forbidden but not criminally prosecutable. {According to Maimonides, a qarōn is not a cart but a train of two carts, from Arabic קרן “to bind two things together”. If one sits in the first of two carts one is criminally liable; if a third cart is added at the end one is forbidden to sit there.}.
הלכה: בְּהֵמָה עִם בְּהֵמָה כו׳. יָכוֹל לֹא יְהֵא מַעֲמִיד זְכָרִים אֵצֶל הַנְּקֵיבוֹת וּנְקֵיבוֹת אֵצֶל זְכָרִים תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר בְּהֶמְתְּךָ לֹא תַרְבִּיעַ. אֵין אַתְּ אָסוּר אֶלָּא מִלְּהַרְבִּיעַ אֲבָל מַעֲמִיד אַתְּ זְכָרִים אֵצֶל נְקֵיבוֹת וּנְקֵיבוֹת אֵצֶל זְכָרִים. וְכִי מַה עָשָׂה מַעֲשֶׂה לֹא כְשֶׁהִטִּיל וּלְפִי דַּעְתּוֹ הוּא מַטִּיל. HALAKHAH: “Domestic animal with domestic animal, etc.” I might think one cannot put a male next to a female nor a female next to a male; the verse says (Lev. 19:19) “do not cause your domestic animals to copulate”. You are only forbidden to cause to copulate but you may put a male next to a female or a female next to a male. But what did he actually do38In order to commit a crime, the perpetrator has to perform a forbidden action. But if the male animal acts by itself, is not put on the female by a human, nothing has been perpetrated. {Explanation by R. Eliahu Fulda, following the Babli Baba Meẓi‘a 91a. R. Moses Margalit and R. Eliahu Wilna explain: What is the crime committed by a person who causes animals to copulate by bringing the male bodily onto the female? The answer is that while ejaculation by the male is an automatic reaction, it fulfills the expectations of the human and therefore is induced by the human’s action.}? When it ejaculates it does so by itself.
אִיסִּי בֶּן עֲקַבְּיָה אוֹמֵר אָסוּר לִרְכֹּב עַל גַּבֵּי פִרְדָּה מִקַּל וַחוֹמֶר. וּמַה אִם בִּבְגָדִים שֶׁאַתְּ מוּתָּר לִלְבּוֹשׁ זֶה עַל זֶה אַתְּ אוֹסֵר בְּתַעֲרוּבָתָן. בְּהֵמָה שֶׁאַתְּ אָסוּר לְהַנְהִיג בָּהּ בְּזוֹ עִם זוֹ לֹא כָּל־שֶׁכֵּן אַתְּ אָסוּר לִרְכּוֹב עָלֶיהָ. וְהָא כְּתִיב וַיִּרְכְּיבוּ אִישׁ עַל פִּרְדּוֹ וַיָּנוּסוּ. אֵין לְמֵידִין מִן הַמַּלְכוּת. וְהָא כְתִיב וְהִרְכַּבְתֶּם אֶת שְׁלֹמֹה בְנִי עַל הַפִּרְדָּה אֲשֶׁר לִי. בִּירְיָה מִשֵּׁשֶׁת יְמֵי בְרֵאשִׁית הָֽיְתָה. 39Tosephta Kilaim 5:6. The Tosephta rejects Issi’s argument since it is written about David that he did all Eternal (1K. 15:5). Issi ben Aqabia40A Tanna of the last generation, student of R. Eleazar ben Shamua and R. Yose, who appears also as Issi ben Gur Arieh, Issi ben Jehudah, Issi ben Gamliel, Joseph the Babylonian, Joseph from Hutsal, and maybe Rav Assi. says: It is forbidden to ride on a mule by an argument of analogy. If garments which you may wear one upon the other are forbidden in mixture41It might be permitted to wear a woolen coat over a linen garment but it is forbidden to wear any garment containing both wool and linen; cf. Chapter Nine, end of Halakhah 7., you are certainly forbidden to ride on [a mixture of] animals you may not lead together. But is it not written (2Sam. 13:29): “Each one rode on his mule and they fled”? One does not learn from a king’s family42They will not listen to religious authority.. But is it not written (1K. 1:33): “Let my son Solomon ride on my she-mule”? That was a creature from Creation43A wild animal, spontaneous offspring of a wild horse and a wild ass..
רִבִּי חָמָא בַּר עוּקְבָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי חֲנִינָה אָמַר הַמַּנְהִיג קוֹלוֹ בְכִלאַיִם לוֹקֶה. וְתַנֵּי כֵן הִנְהִיגָהּ הִמְשִׁיכָהּ קָרָא לָהּ וּבָאָת אַחֲרָיו נִתְחַייֵב בָּהּ לְשַׁלֵּם כְּשׁוֹאֵל. וְהָתַנִּי שְׁמוּאֵל הָֽיְתָה עוֹמֶדֶת חוּץ לִתְחוּם וְקָרָא לָהּ וּבָאָת אַחֲרָיו הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר. תַּמָּן לְדַעְתָּהּ הִיא מְהַלֶּכֶת. בְּרַם הָכָא עַל כּוֹרְחָהּ הִיא מְהַלֶּכֶת. וְהָתַנֵּי טִיפַּח כְּנֶגֶד עֵינוֹ וְסִיְּמֵייהּ כְּנֶגֶד אָזְנוֹ וְחֵרְשָׁהּ לֹא יָצָא לְחֵירוּת. אָמַר רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר בֵּירִבִּי יוֹסֵי קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי שַׁנְייָא הִיא שֶׁהוּא יָכוֹל לִבְרוֹחַ. תֵּדַע לָךְ שֶׁהוּא כֵן דְּתַנֵּי תָּפַשׂ בּוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה חַייָב. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba44A student of R. Yose ben Ḥanina and teacher of Rebbis Jeremiah, Jonah, Yose. said in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina, he who leads kilaim by voice will be whipped45In the Babli, Baba Meẓi‘a 90b, this is a disagreement between R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish. The argument there is only whether speaking is considered an action, not as in the Yerushalmi that the yoking together of two animals of different species prepares the transgression.. We have stated so: “If he led it, if he made it draw, if he called it and it came, he is responsible to pay like a borrower.46If a person takes an animal which is not his in any of the ways indicated, he becomes responsible for all damages incurred as if he had borrowed the animal, until he formally returns it to its owner. In the Babli (Qiddušin 22b) and the Tosephta (Qiddušin 1:7), a parallel statement is given referring to acquisition of movables. In talmudic theory, payment alone does not transfer property; the property bought must be acquired by actually taking possession of at least some of it. If somebody bought a herd of cattle and then called one of them and it came, he has acquired the herd.” But did not Samuel state: “If it was standing outside the Sabbath domain, he called it and it came after him, he is free.47If his cattle was standing outside the domain he could walk in on the Sabbath (2000 cubits from the edge of his town) and he called it back, he has not infringed on the laws of the Sabbath since he did not actually step outside his domain. Hence, calling cannot be the same as actually leading.” There it comes of its own volition, here it is forced to walk48Since leading two animals of different species is forbidden only if they are somehow bound together, which restricts the freedom of each animal to walk according to its own volition and makes the human the overpowering influence. The Babli (Baba Meẓi‘a 90b) seems to reject this argument by noting that if somebody bound two animals together and then another person came and drove them, or if somebody muzzled the mouth of an ox far away from grain and another person then led it to thresh grain, only the second person is guilty in either case. This rule is accepted in Yerushalmi Terumot 9:4 (fol. 46d); it is considered irrelevant as argument here. But did we not state: “If he clapped before his [a slave’s] eye and blinded it, before his [a slave’s] ear and made it deaf, he [the slave] does not attain freedom.49A slave gains his freedom if he is severely injured by his master (Ex. 21:26–27). If the master hits the slave on his body, the slave goes free; near the body only if the slave could not move away. Similarly, for kilaim the rancher is responsible only if he restricts the freedom of movement of his animals.
The parallel discussion is in Babli Qiddušin 24b.” Rebbi Eliezer ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yose, there is a difference because he [the slave] could have fled. Know that it is so because we have stated: “If he grabbed him he is guilty.”
הַיּוֹשֵׁב בְּקָרוֹן רַבָּנִין אָֽמְרִין מִשְׁקָל הוּא רִבִּי מֵאִיר אָמַר אֵינוֹ מִשְׁקָל. 53In the Venice print and Leyden ms. this is still part of Halakhah 2.: He who sits in a cart, the rabbis say he is a weight, Rebbi Meïr says, he is no weight54The rabbis assert that the animals have to work harder because of the passenger..
בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה לֹא הָיוּ אֶלָּא שְׁתַּיִם דִּכְתִיב וַיַּרְכֵּב אוֹתוֹ בְּמִרְכֶּבֶת הַמִּשְׁנֶה אֲשֶׁר לוֹ. עָמַד פַּרְעֹה וְעָשָׂה שָׁלֹשׁ דִּכְתִיב וְשָׁלִישִׁים עַל כּוּלּוֹ. עָֽמְדָה מַלְכוּת הָרִשְׁעָה וְעָשָׂה אוֹתָן אַרְבָּעָה. Originally there were only two as it is written (Gen. 41:43): “He made him ride in his two-horse carriage.” Pharao came and made them three, as it is written (Ex. 14:7): “three-horse over everything.” The evil kingdom55A standard name for the Roman government. arose and made it four.