## Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim Chapter 8

###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 8:1:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 8:1:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/8:1:1)

**משנה:** כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם אֲסוּרִין מִלִּזְרוֹעַ וּמִלְּקַיֵים וַאֲסוּרִין בְּהַנָּאָה. כִּלְאֵי זְרָעִים אֲסוּרִין מִלִּזְרוֹעַ וּמִלְּקַיֵים וּמוּתָּרִין בַּאֲכִילָה וְכָל שֶׁכֵּן בְּהַנָּאָה. כִּלְאֵי בְגָדִים מוּתָּרִין בְּכָל דָּבָר וְאֵינָן אֲסוּרִין אֶלָּא מִלִּלְבּוֹשׁ. כִּלְאֵי בְהֵמָה מוּתָּרִין לְגַדֵּל וּלְקַיֵים וְאֵינָן אֲסוּרִין אֶלָּא מִלְּהַרְבִּיעַ. כִּלְאֵי בְהֵמָה אֲסוּרִין זֶה עִם זֶה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** *Kilaim* in a vineyard are forbidden to be sown or kept and are forbidden for any use. *Kilaim* of grains are forbidden to be sown or kept but are permitted for eating and certainly for use. *Kilaim* of textiles are permitted for everything; they are only forbidden to be worn. *Kilaim* of animals may be raised and kept; they are only forbidden to be mated. *Kilaim* of animals are forbidden [to be mated] with one another¹.

footnotes:
¹ Since a mule is part horse and part donkey, mating of two mules implies double mating of parts of horse with parts of donkey and is forbidden for human intervention.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 8:1:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 8:1:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/8:1:2)

**הלכה:** כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם אֲסוּרִין כו׳. כְּתִיב לֹא תִזְרַע כַּרְמְךָ כִּלְאַיִם. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא הַזּוֹרֵעַ מְקַיֵים מְנַיִין תַּלמוּד לוֹמַר וְכֶרֶם וְלֹא כִלְאַיִם. מַה כְרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה דְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר הַמְקַיֵים עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא הַכֹּל מוֹדִים בָּאָסוּר שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר בְּשֶׁלֹּא קִיֵים עַל יְדֵי מַעֲשֶׂה אֲבָל אִם קִיֵים עַל יְדֵי מַעֲשֶׂה לוֹקֶה. כְּהָדָא דְתַנֵּי הַמְחַפֶּה בְּכִלְאַיִם לוֹקֶה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “*Kilaim* in a vineyard are forbidden,” etc. It is written (*Deut*. 22:9): “Do not sow *kilaim* in your vineyard.” Not only sowing, how about keeping? The verse says, vineyard and no *kilaim*² 2(18) [Babli *Mo‘ed Qaṭan* 2b, *Avodah Zarah* 64a, *Makkot* 21b]: (*Lev*. 19:19): “ ‘Your field you should sow no *kilaim*.’ Not only sowing, how about keeping? The verse says, no *kilaim*, I told you only because of *kilaim*.” This argument covers grains, vegetables, and vines. However, the same verse also mentions *kilaim of* animals and textiles in similar language and these may be kept in the opinion of the Mishnah. It follows that a derivation based on the verse *Lev*. 19:19 has to be rejected and only an argument parallel to that in Chapter 7 is acceptable.. Does this follow Rebbi Aqiba, for Rebbi Aqiba said that he who keeps [*kilaim*] transgresses a prohibition³ 1:15 deals with *kilaim* of seeds (grains and vegetables), he cannot imply that passively keeping *kilaim* is prosecutable as a criminal offense. However, in the Babli (*Mo‘ed Qaṭan* 2b, *Avodah Zarah* 64a), R. Aqiba is quoted in a *baraita* to the effect that keeping *kilaim* is a criminal offense. This forces Rashi and the other commentators to conclude that “keeping” here means “fencing in” or a similar activity. (Rashi to *Mo‘ed Qaṭan* 2 is lost; the commentary is in *Avodah Zarah*.) The Yerushalmi has no such difficulty.? Rebbi Yose said, it is the word of everybody. Everybody agrees that what is forbidden is forbidden if he did not preserve through an action, but if he preserved through an action he is whipped, as it is stated: He who covers *kilaim* is whipped.

footnotes:
² Cf. Chapter 7, Note 44. The parallel to this argument is in Sifra Qedošim
³ “Prohibition” usually refers to a criminal offense. “Forbidden” refers to a moral obligation. Since the statement of R. Aqiba in Tosephta Kilaim


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 8:1:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 8:1:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/8:1:3)

מְנַיִין שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָיה נֶאֱמַר כָּאן פֶּן תִּקְדַּשׁ וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן פֶּן תּוּקְדָּשׁ בּוֹ מַה פֶּן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָיה אַף פֶּן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּאן אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָיה. וְאִית דְּבָעֵי מֵימַר נֶאֱמַר כָּאן פֶּן תִּקְדַּשׁ וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן וְלֹא יִהְיֶה קָדֵשׁ מִבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. מַה קדש הָאָמוּר לְהַלָּן אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָיה אַף כָּאן אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָיה. וְקָדֵשׁ אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָיה. אָמַר רִבִּי חוּנָה בִּיאָתוֹ אֲסוּרָה בַּהֲנָיָיה. אִית דִּבְעֵי נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא דְּאָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינַא פֶּן תִּקְדַּשׁ פֶּן תּוּקַּד בָּאֵשׁ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
From where that it is forbidden for any use? It is said here (*Deut*. 22:9) “lest you sanctify it” and it is said elsewhere (lest it become sanctified by it)⁴. 12:30) “lest you be caught”, speaking of idolatrous objects that must be destroyed and every use of which is explicitly forbidden. One applies the principle that words in the Pentateuch have one invariable meaning; if that meaning is spelled out at one place, it can be transferred to any other occurrence of the same word.. Since “lest” there means it is forbidden for any use, “lest” here means it is forbidden for all use. Some want to say, it is said here “lest you sanctify it” and it is said at another place “there shall be no *qadeš* among the Israelites.” Since *qdš* there means forbidden for any use, so *qdš* here must mean forbidden for any use. Rebbi Huna said, his sex act is forbidden for all use⁵ is the Semitic male temple prostitute. In the Talmudim, the notion which had become obsolete at that time was extended to all sexual relations of persons who could not legally marry one another, such as the relation between a slave and a free woman, or of a free Jew and a slave girl or a Gentile. Since the woman could not hope to be married, she could have no gain from the sex act; any pleasure she might have is strictly forbidden.. Some want to understand it from the following, as Rebbi Ḥanina said, “lest you sanctify it”, lest fire should be kindled⁶ 56b, *Ḥulin* 115a in the name of Ḥizqiah. No Tannaitic source proposes to change the text from תקדש to תקד אש..”

footnotes:
⁴ There is no such verse in the entire Hebrew Bible. It is the consensus of the commentators that it should read פן תנקש (Deut
⁵ The qadeš
⁶ The same argument is in Babli Qiddušin


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 8:1:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 8:1:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/8:1:4)

כְּתִיב לֹא תִזְרַע כַּרְמְךָ כִּלְאַיִם. מְלַמֵּד שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָיב עַד שֶׁיִּזְרַע שְׁנֵי מִינִין בַּכֶּרֶם דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה רִבִּי יוֹנָתָן אָמַר אֲפִילוּ מִין אֶחָד. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹנָתָן כְּתִיב שָׂדְךָ לֹא תִזְרַע כִּלְאַיִם לְאֵי זֶה דָּבָר נֶאֱמַר לֹא תִזְרַע כַּרְמְךָ כִּלְאָיִם. חֲבֵרַיָיא אָמְרִין לְהַחֲמִיר עָלָיו אֲפִילוּ מִין אֶחָד. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה שָׂדְךָ לֹא תִזְרַע כִּלְאַיִם לְאֵי זֶה דָּבָר נֶאֱמַר לֹא תִזְרַע כַּרְמְךָ כִּלְאָיִם. חֲבֵרַיָיא אָמְרִין לְהַתְרַיָיה שֶׁאִם הִתְרוּ בוֹ מִשּׁוּם שָׂדְךָ לוֹקֶה. מִשּׁוּם כַּרְמְךָ לוֹקֶה. אָמַר רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיא לִיתֵּן לוֹ שִׁיעוּר אֲחֶרֶת מִן שִׁשָּׁה טְפָחִים. וְכָן אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת. מַה נָן קַיָימִין אִם בְּשֶׁעָשָׂה גֶדֶר מִבִּפְנִים בָּטֵל הַכֶּרֶם. אִם בְּשֶׁעָשָׂה גֶדֶר מִבְּחוּץ זֶהוּ הַמָּחוֹל. אֶלָּא כֵּן נָן קַיָימִין בְּשָׂדֶה שֶׁהָיָה שָׁם שְׂדֵה תְבוּאָה וְהִקְרִיחַ לְתוֹכָהּ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת. וְאַתְיָא כִּדְאָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָה אֵין הָאוֹסֵר נַעֲשֶׂה מְחִיצָה לְהַצִּיל. סָבְרִין מֵימַר אוֹסֵר נַעֲשֶׂה מְחִיצָה לֵיאָסֵר. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִי יוֹנָתָן כְּתִיב שָׂדְךָ לֹא תִזְרַע כִּלְאַיִם לְאֵי זֶה דָּבָר נֶאֱמַר לֹא תִזְרַע כַּרְמְךָ כִּלְאָיִם. כְּהִיא דְּאָמַר רִבִּי הֵילָא הֵן דְּאַתְּ אָמַר לֹא אָמַרְתְּ לְמָה אַתְּ אָמַר. אוֹ כְּהִיא דְּאָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא לֹא תִזְרַע כַּרְמְךָ כִּלְאַיִם עִיקַּר כַּרְמְךָ כִּלְאַיִם לֹא תִזְרַע.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It is written (*Deut*. 22:9): “Do not sow *kilaim* in your vineyard.” This teaches us that one is not guilty unless he sows two kinds in the vineyard, the words of Rebbi Josia⁸ in your vineyard” or “do not sow your vineyard as *kilaim*.” R. Josia chooses the first possibility, R. Jonathan the second. There is no question that the verse of *Deut*. contains the rule of sanctification that does not apply to the situation of the verse in *Lev:*, the question is why the second verse does not refer to the first.. Rebbi Jonathan said, even one kind. In the opinion of Rebbi Jonathan it is written (*Lev*. 19:19) “in your field do not sow *kilaim*”, why does it say “do not sow *kilaim* in your vineyard”? The colleagues say, to make it sinful even with one kind. In the opinion of Rebbi Josia, “in your field do not sow *kilaim*”; why does it say “do not sow *kilaim* in your vineyard”? The colleagues say, as a warning. If he was warned about “your field”, he is whipped, if he was warned about “your vineyard”, he is whipped⁹. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, to give another measure besides six hand-breadths; here it is four cubits¹⁰ in an enclosed field (and single vines considered as fields) is possible only if a minimal distance of six hand-breadths was not observed; cf. Halakhah 1:9. Four cubits is the minimum distance for an enclosed vineyard. The existence of two different verses is a precondition to the establishment of two different legal standards.. What are we talking about¹¹? If he made a fence on the inside, the vineyard is abolished. If he made a fence on the outside, that is the circumference. But we deal with a field that was a grain field and he cleared four cubits in its midst. This agrees with what Rebbi Ḥanina said, nothing forbidden may form a separation to save. They were of the opinion that what is forbidden does form a separation to prohibit¹². In the opinion of Rebbi Jonathan it is written (*Lev*. 19:19): “In your field do not sow *kilaim*”, why does it say: “Do not sow *kilaim* in your vineyard”¹³? For that which Rebbi Hila said, if you would say [the Torah] did not say it, what would you say¹⁴? Or following what Rebbi Zeïra said, “do not sow your vineyard *kilaim*,” creating your vineyard do not sow *kilaim*.¹⁵”, not, as we would think, that “do not sow” refers to a preexisting vineyard which usually is planted, not sown. The only transgression that can be punished by biblical standards, i. e., whipping, is creating a vineyard as *kilaim*, sowing while the planted vines take root.

footnotes:
⁸ The Hebrew text לא תזרע כרמך כלאים is somewhat ambiguous. One may translate “do not sow kilaim
⁹ In talmudic legal theory, a verdict of guilty cannot be pronounced unless criminal intent was shown by the testimony of two witnesses. The standard way of proving intent is the testimony that the perpetrator was warned not to commit such and such an act because it is forbidden in the Torah and that therefore he committed the act in the knowledge of its illegality. The prohibition must be specified. In our case, since sowing something in a vineyard turns the vineyard into a field, either of the verses may be used. This almost impossible standard of proof is needed only in order to convict somebody under biblical law which knows only flogging and the death penalty; it does not have to be strictly adhered to for convictions under police powers for which the punishment is jailtime.
¹⁰ Conviction for sowing kilaim
¹¹ One tries to clarify the statement of R. Abun bar Ḥiyya. If the field is not enclosed, no minimum separation is required but only clear geometric shapes. If the field is enclosed either the enclosure passes through the vineyard, in which case there is no legal vineyard, or it encloses the vineyard, in which case the more stringent rules of the circumference apply (Mishnah 4:1). The only possibility is that the field itself is the enclosure, that a spot was cleared inside the field containing a four-by-four square, to be used for planting an illegal vineyard.
¹² This is explained in Chapter Four, Note 28.
¹³ According to R. Abun bar Ḥiyya, why does R. Jonathan use the verse to declare that somebody can be convicted of a biblical crime by sowing one foreign kind in a vineyard since the verses are needed to establish two different standards? This question is not a repetition of the one asked at the start of this paragraph.
¹⁴ Since the verse is needed first for the more stringent standard and then for the problem of sanctification, it is impossible to think that it should not have been written.
¹⁵ He takes the verse literally, “do not sow your vineyard as kilaim


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 8:1:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 8:1:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/8:1:5)

רִבִּי יוּדָן קַפּוֹדָקִיָּא בָּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי תַּמָּן אַתְּ אָמַר אֵין זַרְעֵי אִילָן קְרוּיִין זְרָעִים. וְהָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר זַרְעֵי אִילָן קְרוּיִין זְרָעִים. אָמַר לֵיהּ תַּמָּן מִיעֵט הַכָּתוּב אֶת שֶׁאֵין דֶּרֶךְ בְּנֵי אָדָם לִהְיוֹת קוֹרִין זְרָעִים. בְּרַם הָכָא רִיבָה הַכָּתוּב עַל כָּל זֶרַע זֵרוּעַ אֲשֶׁר יִזָּרֵעַ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Yudan from Kappadokia asked before Rebbi Yose: There they say that tree seeds are called seeds but here you say that tree seeds are not called seeds. He said to him: There the verse excluded them since usually people do not call them “seeds,” but here the verse added (*Lev*. 11:37) “any sown seed that may be sown.”¹⁶, Halakhah 1:4, and is explained there in Notes 252–253. “There” is here, Tractate *Kilaim*, “here” is in *Peah*. No tree seeds form *kilaim* with grain and vegetables except grape seeds.

footnotes:
¹⁶ The text is from Tractate Peah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 8:1:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 8:1:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/8:1:6)

אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּאי הַמְחַפֶּה בְּכִלְאַיִם לוֹקֶה. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְלָאו מַתְנִיתָא הִיא כִּלְאַיִם בַּכֶּרֶם אֵיךְ אֶיפְשַׁר כִּלְאַיִם עַל יְדֵי חֲרִישָׁה לֹא בִמְחַפֶּה. וַהֲוָה רִבִּי יַנַּיי מְקַלֵּס לֵיהּ הַזָּלִים זָהָב מִכִּיס וגו׳. בְּנִי אַל יָלוּזוּ מֵעֵינֶיךָ תֵּן לְחָכָם וְיֶחְכַּם עוֹד יִשְׁמַע חָכָם וְיוֹסִיף לֶקַח. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ בָּתַר כָּל אִילֵּין קִילּוּסַיָּא יְכִיל אֲנָא פָּתַר לָהּ כְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה דְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אָמַר הַמְקַיֵים עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. כְּלוּם אָמַר רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אֶלָּא לַעֲבוֹר שֶׁמָּא לִלְקוֹת. וְהָכָא לִלְקוֹת אֲנָן קַיָימִין. וְעוֹד מִן הָדָא דְתַנִּינָן שְׁבִיעִית אִית לָךְ מֵימַר שְׁבִיעִית דְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. פָּתַר לָהּ שְׁבִיעִית דְּרִבִּי לָעְזָר דְּרִבִּי לָעְזָר אָמַר לוֹקִין עַל יְדֵי חֲרִישָׁה בַשְּׁבִיעִית. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר אֵין לוֹקִין עַל יְדֵי חֲרִישָׁה בַשְּׁבִיעִית. מַה טַעַם דְּרִבִּי לָעְזָר וְשָׁבְתָה הָאָרֶץ שַׁבָּת לַיי כְּלָל. שָׂדְךָ לֹא תִזְרָע וְכַַרְמְךָ לֹא תִזְמוֹר פְּרָט. הַזֶּרַע וְהַזֶּמֶר בִּכְלָל הָיוּ וְלָמָּה יָצְאוּ לְהַקִּישׁ אֵלֶיהֶן וְלוֹמַר לָךְ מַה זֶרַע וְזֶמֶר מְיוּחָד שֶׁהֵן עֲבוֹדָה בָאָרֶץ וּבְאִילָן אַף כָּל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא עֲבוֹדָה בָאָרֶץ וּבְאִילָן. מַה עֲבַד לָהּ רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. שְׁנֵי דְבָרִים הֵן וּשְׁנֵי דְבָרִים יָצְאוּ מִן הַכְּלָל חוֹלְקִין. וְלֵית לֵיהּ לְרִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר חוֹלְקִין. אִית לֵיהּ לַחֲלוֹק אֵינָן חוֹלְקִין הָא לְלַמֵּד מְלַמְּדִין. וְלֵית לֵיהּ לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מְלַמְּדִין. שַׁנְיָיא הִיא שֶׁהַכְּלָל בַּעֲשֵׂה וּפְרָט בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה אֵין עֲשֵׂה מְלַמֵּד עַל לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה וְאֵין לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה מְלַמֵּד עַל עֲשֵׂה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: He who covers *kilaim* is whipped. Rebbi Joḥanan said to him: Is that not a Mishnah? “*Kilaim* in a vineyard.” How are *kilaim* possible by ploughing¹⁷? It must be by covering! Rebbi Yannai praised him (*Is*. 46:6:) “Those who pour out gold from the wallet, etc.” (*Prov*. 3:21) “My son, they should not be removed from your eyes,” (*Prov*. 9:9) “give to the wise that he shall become wiser,” let the wise listen¹⁸ “that he increase in knowledge.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, after all these praises I can explain it following Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Aqiba said that he who keeps [*kilaim*] transgresses a prohibition. Rebbi Aqiba said only that he transgresses, did he say to whip? Here we are dealing with whipping. Further, from what we have stated “Sabbatical year¹⁹.” Can you say that the Sabbatical year follows Rebbi Aqiba? Explain the Sabbatical year following Rebbi Eleazar, as Rebbi Eleazar said, one whips because of ploughing in the Sabbatical. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one does not whip because of ploughing in the Sabbatical. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar? (*Lev*. 25:2) “The Land should keep a Sabbath for the Eternal,” a general statement. (*Lev*. 25:4) “Your field you should not sow, your vineyard you should not prune,” detail. Sowing and trimming were in the general statement, why were they detailed? To trap with them and to tell you that just as sowing and pruning are particular as agricultural work on the earth or on a tree, so everything that is agricultural work on the earth or on a tree [is forbidden]²⁰ 3a, a tannaïtic version in *Sifra Behar* 1. [Cf. Sanhedrin 7:5, reference from Addenda and Corrigenda by Guggenehimer] A comparison with the Babli should use only manuscripts or early editions; the current versions have been corrupted by editors, cf. *Diqduqe Sopherim ad loc*. The relevant verses are *Lev*. 25:2–5: “(2) Speak to the Children of Israel and tell them, when you shall come to the Land which I am giving you, the Land shall rest for a Sabbath of the Eternal. (3) Six years you shall sow your field, six years you shall prune your vineyard and eat its yield. (4) But in the Seventh year, the Land shall have a Sabbath of rest; do not sow your field, do not prune your vineyard. (5) Your harvest’s aftergrowth you shall not harvest, the grapes of your wild growth you shall not gather, a year of rest shall be for the Land.” One’s first impulse would be to consider verses (4) and (5) as a unit, following the rule known as כלל ופרט וכלל (the seventh rule of R. Ismael, *Sifra* introduction) that details flanked by general statements have to be taken as examples, rather than for themselves, and that all activities forbidden are those described by the intersection of the intensional definitions of the examples. This interpretation led the later editors of the Babli astray. The problem is that verse 4 by itself seems to have the structure כלל ופרט, a general statement followed by a particular one, which would imply that the particular statement is to be taken literally; nothing is covered by the general statement that is not covered by the particular one. This forces the Babli to conclude that even R. Eleazar agrees with the principle [anonymous in the Yerushalmi, attributed to R. Ilaï (Hila, La) in the Babli] that a positive general statement and a negative particular one cannot form a unit. {The inverse statement, that a negative general statement and a positive particular one must be considered as unrelated, is an anonymous remark in Babli *Yebamot*7a.}
If the first and the second parts of verse 4 have no direct connection, the question arises (in the formulation of *Sifra Behar*) whether one could think that all work is forbidden in the Seventh Year, including building roads and repairing aqueducts. The second part of the verse describes what is really forbidden. The second rule invoked here by R. Eleazar is *heqqēš*“trapping”, meaning that a rule exemplified by different cases applies to all cases subsumed under the intersection of the intensional definitions of the examples. Everybody agrees that a rule exemplified by three different examples only applies to these three and nothing else, and a rule exemplified by one example applies to everything similar unless restricted, e. g., by the use of a definite article. A rule exemplified by two examples is problematic; some think these are examples only if they appear at different places and some hold that for illustration of a general rule the examples must appear in the same verse. This is the basis of the following disagreement between R. Eleazar and R. Joḥanan. (For the meaning of all these rules, cf. H. Guggenheimer, *Logical Problems in Jewish Tradition*, in: Ph. Longworth, ed., *Confrontations with Judaism*, London 1966.). How does Rebbi Joḥanan deal with this? They are two things and two things that are specified from a general notion divide²¹.. Does Rebbi Eleazar not hold that they divide? He holds that they do not divide but instruct. Does Rebbi Joḥanan not hold that they instruct? It is different here because the general statement is a positive commandment and the details are prohibitions; no positive commandment implies anything for a prohibition and no prohibition implies anything for a positive commandment.

footnotes:
¹⁷ Since a standard vineyard is planted with four cubits between vines and rows, there is no space for a plough which needs four cubits on each side. Hence, anything sown has to be sown on the unploughed earth and then covered; the verse calls covering seeds with earth “sowing”.
¹⁸ In the verse: “inform the just”.
¹⁹ According to R. Eleazar, everybody agrees that ploughing in the Sabbatical year is a criminal offense, while according to R. Joḥanan everybody agrees that ploughing in the Sabbatical year is not a criminal offense. There is no way to single out R. Aqiba’s opinion.
²⁰ The Babylonian version of this argument is in Babli Mo‘ed Qaṭan
²¹ The examples are separate; they cannot be used in heqqēš


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 8:1:7
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 8:1:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/8:1:7)

עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן נִיחָא מוּתָּר לַחְפּוֹר בָּהּ בּוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי לָעְזָר מַהוּ לַחְפּוֹר בָּהּ בּוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֵינָן מְלַמְּדִין לְעִנְיַין אִיסוּר כָּךְ לְעִנְיַין הֵיתֵר לֹא יְלַמְּדוּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
According to R. Joḥanan it is obvious that one is permitted to dig in it²² cisterns, ditches, and caves. According to R. Eleazar, may one dig in it cisterns, ditches, and caves? If the verses have no implication for prohibition they cannot have implications for permission²³) only prohibits work on the field and in the vineyard, certainly not digging ditches..

footnotes:
²² The Sabbatical year. If ploughing is permitted, digging certainly is.
²³ The question is asked the wrong way: If R. Joḥanan asserts that two examples together do not prove anything, they cannot prove that something is permitted. On the other hand, R. Eleazar (following Sifra Behar


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 8:1:8
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 8:1:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/8:1:8)

אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא קַרְתִּיגֵנַיָיא טַעַם דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים תִּזְרַע שָׂדֶךָ לֹא בַשְּׁבִיעִית וְשֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים תִּזְמוֹר כַּרְמֶךָ לֹא בַשְּׁבִיעִית. כָּל לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁהוּא בָּא מִכֹּחַ עֲשֵׂה עֲשֵׂה הוּא וְעוֹבֵר בַּעֲשֵׂה. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר עוֹבֵר בַּעֲשֵׂה. רִבִּי יוֹסָה אָמַר אֲפִילוּ עֲשֵׂה אֵין בּוֹ לֵיידֶא מִילָּה כְּתִיב וְשָׁבְתָה הָאָרֶץ שַׁבָּת לַיי. לְעִנְיַין לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁבּוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Abba from Carthage said, the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan is (*Lev*. 25:3): “Six years you shall sow your field”, not in the Seventh, “six years you shall prune your vineyard,” not in the Seventh. Every prohibition derived from a positive commandment is a positive commandment; he transgresses a positive commandment²⁴. Rebbi Jeremiah said, he transgresses a positive commandment. Rebbi Yasa said, there is not even a positive commandment! Why is it written (*Lev*. 25:2): “the Land shall rest for a Sabbath of the Eternal?” For the prohibitions in it²⁵; “the prohibitions in it” are the two prohibitions spelled out in the verse..

footnotes:
²⁴ In the opinion of R. Abba from Carthage, R. Joḥanan only asserted that ploughing is not overstepping a formal prohibition. For him, ploughing is still forbidden but the prohibition is not one of criminal law since it is formulated in a positive way.
²⁵ He (R. Assi) sticks with the prior explanation that two simultaneous examples do not imply heqqeš


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 8:1:9
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 8:1:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/8:1:9)

יָכוֹל יְהוֹ לוֹקִין עַל הַתּוֹסָפוֹת שֶׁבּוֹ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן פָּתַר מַתְנִיתָא יָכוֹל יְהוּ לוֹקִין עַל חֲרִישָׁה בַשְּׁבִיעִית. רִבִּי לָעְזָר פָּתַר מַתְנִיתָא יָכוֹל יְהוּ לוֹקִין עַל אִיסּוּר שְׁנֵי פְרָקִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים תִּזְרַע שָׂדֶךָ וְשֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים תִּזְמוֹר כַּרְמֶךָ. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי שָׂדְךָ לֹא תִזְרָע וְכַרְמְךָ לֹא תִזְמוֹר. מָאן דְּאָמַר שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים תִּזְרַע שָׂדֶךָ וְשֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים תִּזְמוֹר כַּרְמֶךָ מְסַיְיעָא לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מָאן דְּאָמַר שָׂדְךָ לֹא תִזְרָע וְכַרְמְךָ לֹא תִּזְמֹר מְסַיְיעָא לְרִבִּי לָעְזָר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“I could think one would whip because of the additions.²⁶; a similar one, also quoted in two separate pieces, is in Babli *Mo‘ed Qaṭan* 3b. A *baraita* starting with “I could think that …” always ends with showing that it is not so. The “additions” are prohibitions not explicitly stated in the Pentateuch.” Rebbi Joḥanan explains the *baraita*, I could think that one would whip because of ploughing in the Sabbatical. Rebbi Eleazar explains the *baraita*, I could think that one would whip because of the prohibition of the first two terms²⁷ 1:1,2:1). These regulations have purely rabbinical character; the Biblical prohibition extends only to a short time before New Year’s Day. R. Eleazar will agree that even transgression of the latter prohibition is not punishable in court but the expression “two terms” is inappropriate since it refers to rabbinical extensions.. Some Tannaïm state (*Lev*. 25:3): “Six years you shall sow your field, six years you shall prune your vineyard.” Some Tannaïm state (*Lev*. 25:4) “Your field you should not sow, your vineyard you should not prune.” He who states: “Six years you shall sow your field, six years you shall prune your vineyard,” supports Rebbi Joḥanan. He who states: “Your field you should not sow, your vineyard you should not prune,” supports Rebbi Eleazar²⁸.

footnotes:
²⁶ This is a quote from a baraita
²⁷ The prohibition to work after the harvest of the year preceding the Sabbatical, two different terms, one for fields and one for orchards (Ševi‘it
²⁸ The implications of these verses for the positions of the authors have been explained in the previous paragraphs.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 8:1:10
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 8:1:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/8:1:10)

מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי לָעְזָר הִשָּׁמֵר לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. וּכְתִיב שָׁם תַּעֲלֶה שָׁם תַּעֲשֶׂה. בְּגִין דִּכְתִיב הָא אִילּוּ לֹא כְתִיב עֲשֵׂה הוּא. שֶׁלֹּא תֹאמַר כְּמַה דְתֵימָר גַּבֵּי שַׁבָּת חָפַר חָרַץ נָעַץ אֵינוֹ חַיָיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. וְדִכְוָותָהּ שָׁחַט זָרַק וְהֶעֱלָה לֹא יְהֵא חַיָיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. לְפוּם כֵּן צָרַךְ מֵימַר חַיָיב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
A *baraita* disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar²⁹ is preserved in *Sifry Deut*. 70–71, on the verses (*Deut*. 12–13): “*Guard yourself* not to present your burnt offerings at every place you see. Only at the place which the Eternal will choose from one of your tribes, there *you should present* your burnt offerings and there *you should perform* all that I am commanding you.” The first verse contains a prohibition, the second a positive commandment and because of this difference, the verses cannot be taken together in the way R. Eleazar interpreted a similar situation regarding the Sabbatical year. Hence, R. Eleazar seems to contradict tannaïtic attitudes. Since in our sources R. Eleazar’s interpretation of the verses *Lev*. 25:2–5 is found in *Sifra*, one may take this as an indication that *Sifra* was unknown to the compilers of the Yerushalmi, and that *Sifra* is a Babylonian compilation of tannaïtic material as is traditionally asserted.. “ ‘Guard yourself’ means a prohibition. And it is written: There you should present, there you should perform.” Because that is written, otherwise I would have said it is a positive commandment³⁰. But that you should not say as you say regarding the Sabbath that if somebody dug a hole, made a ditch, and dug to put in a pole, he is guilty only of one offense, so similarly, if somebody slaughtered, sprinkled the blood, and presented he should be guilty only of one offense³¹, the interpretation is that the prohibition covers only those actions that are simultaneously a criminal offense and a disregard of a positive injunction.}. Therefore, it is necessary to say that he is guilty for each action separately.

footnotes:
²⁹ The baraita
³⁰ Verses 13–14 show that sacrificing outside the precincts of the Tabernacle or the Temple is a criminal offense (v. 13) and a disregard of a positive injunction (v. 14). The two verses are parallel, not logically consecutive as R. Eleazar would require.
³¹ An argument is given that R. Eleazar could justify the different treatment of an apparently similar situation.The Sabbath prohibitions are classified under 39 categories of “main works”. An action similar to one of the main works is called a derivative. For example, ploughing as a preparation for sowing and digging a hole for the planting of a tree are main work and derivative respectively. If somebody performed both a main work and one of its derivatives in error, he has to bring one sacrifice of atonement. But if he transgressed prohibitions belonging to two distinct categories, he has to bring two sacrifices. In the case of sacrifices outside the Temple, presenting the sacrifice on the altar is really the last action; it is preceded first by the slaughter of the sacrificial animal and second by the sprinkling of its blood on the walls of the altar. These actions are classified as “performing”. Since the order of the actions is inverted, first “presenting” then “acting”, it follows that they are distinct and that slaughter and sprinkling are not legally derivatives of presenting. {In the Sifry


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 8:1:11
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 8:1:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/8:1:11)

רִבִּי זְעִירָא רַב חִיָיא בַּר אַשִּׁי בְשֵׁם כֲּהָנָא הַנּוֹטֵעַ בַּשַּׁבָּת חַיָיב מִשּׁוּם זוֹרֵעַ. רִבִּי זְעִירָא אָמַר הַזּוֹמֵר כְּנוֹטֵעַ. נָטַע וְזָמַר בַּשַּׁבָּת עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דַכֲהָנָא חַיָיב שְׁתַּיִם. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי זְעִירָא אֵינוֹ חַיָיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. כְּלוּם אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא אֶלָּא הַזּוֹמֵר כְּנוֹטֵעַ שֶׁמָּא הַנּוֹטֵעַ כְּזוֹמֵר. הַכֹּל הָיָה בִּכְלָל זְרִיעָה יָצָאת זְמִירָה לְהַחֲמִיר עַל עַצְמָהּ. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיָּצָאת זְמִירָה לְהַחֲמִיר עַל עַצְמָהּ אַתְּ פּוֹטְרוֹ מִשּׁוּם זוֹרֵעַ הֲוֵי לֹא שַׁנְיָיא בֵּין עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דַכֲהָנָא בֵּין עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי זְעִירָא חַיָיב שְׁתַּיִם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Zeïra, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Cahana³³: He who is planting on the Sabbath is guilty because of sowing³⁴. Rebbi Zeïra said, he who prunes is like one who plants. If he planted and pruned on the Sabbath, according to Cahana he is guilty on two counts, according to Rebbi Zeïra only on one count. Did not Rebbi Zeïra say the pruner is like the planter, did he say the planter is like the pruner³⁵? All was included in the notion of sowing; pruning was singled out for particular stringency³⁶. Because pruning was singled out for particular stringency you want to exempt it because of sowing? There is no difference, both according to Cahana and according to Rebbi Zeïra he is guilty on two counts.

footnotes:
³³ Since Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi was among the older students of Rav, Cahana mentioned here cannot be the one who went to study under R. Joḥanan but must be an older Sage (Cahana I) who already was a recognized authority when Rav returned from Galilee to Babylonia.
³⁴ Sowing is the category, planting a derivative.
³⁵ Pruning is a subcategory of sowing concerning the Sabbath just as planting is, but planting is not like pruning for the Sabbatical year since planting belongs to sowing.
³⁶ Following the argument made for the Sabbath, it would not have been necessary to have pruning singled out in the laws of the Sabbatical. Since it is obvious that for the Sabbatical, pruning is a separate offense, pruning can be a subcategory of sowing for the Sabbath only as a stringency, not a leniency.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 8:2:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 8:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/8:2:1)

**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.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**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 leading³⁷. 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 forty⁵⁰, “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 prosecution⁵¹. 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 forbidden⁵² 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.}.

footnotes:
³⁷ The source of this Mishnah is Deut
⁵⁰ This Mishnah deals with a cart (Greek κάρρον, τό, “car, cart”; cf. κάρρος, ὁ, Latin carrus, carrum
⁵¹ This reading is supported by Sifry Deut
⁵² If 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


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 8:2:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 8:2:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/8:2:2)

**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.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**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 do³⁸ 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.

footnotes:
³⁸ In 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


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 8:2:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 8:2:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/8:2:3)

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 הָיְתָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
³⁹ 5:6. The Tosephta rejects Issi’s argument since it is written about David that he did all Eternal (*1K*. 15:5). Issi ben Aqabia⁴⁰ 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 mixture⁴¹, 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 family⁴². But is it not written (*1K*. 1:33): “Let my son Solomon ride on my she-mule”? That was a creature from Creation⁴³.

footnotes:
³⁹ Tosephta Kilaim
⁴⁰ A 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.
⁴¹ It 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.
⁴² They will not listen to religious authority.
⁴³ A wild animal, spontaneous offspring of a wild horse and a wild ass.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 8:2:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 8:2:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/8:2:4)

רִבִּי חָמָא בַּר עוּקְבָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי חֲנִינָה אָמַר הַמַּנְהִיג קוֹלוֹ בְכִלְאַיִם לוֹקֶה. וְתַנֵּי כֵן הִנְהִיגָהּ הִמְשִׁיכָהּ קָרָא לָהּ וּבָאָת אַחֲרָיו נִתְחַיֵיב בָּהּ לְשַׁלֵּם כְּשׁוֹאֵל. וְהָתַנִּי שְׁמוּאֵל הָיְתָה עוֹמֶדֶת חוּץ לִתְחוּם וְקָרָא לָהּ וּבָאָת אַחֲרָיו הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר. תַּמָּן לְדַעְתָּהּ הִיא מְהַלֶּכֶת. בְּרַם הָכָא עַל כּוֹרְחָהּ הִיא מְהַלֶּכֶת. וְהָתַנֵּי טִיפַּח כְּנֶגֶד עֵינוֹ וְסִימְּיָיהּ כְּנֶגֶד אָזְנוֹ וְחֵרְשָׁהּ לֹא יָצָא לְחֵירוּת. אָמַר רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר בֵּירִבִּי יוֹסֵי קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי שַׁנְיָיא הִיא שֶׁהוּא יָכוֹל לִבְרוֹחַ. תֵּדַע לָךְ שֶׁהוּא כֵן דְּתַנֵּי תָּפַשׂ בּוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָיב.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba⁴⁴ said in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina, he who leads *kilaim* by voice will be whipped⁴⁵ 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.⁴⁶ 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.⁴⁷” There it comes of its own volition, here it is forced to walk⁴⁸ 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.⁴⁹. 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.”

footnotes:
⁴⁴ A student of R. Yose ben Ḥanina and teacher of Rebbis Jeremiah, Jonah, Yose.
⁴⁵ In the Babli, Baba Meẓi‘a
⁴⁶ If 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
⁴⁷ If 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.
⁴⁸ Since 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
⁴⁹ A slave gains his freedom if he is severely injured by his master (Ex


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 8:2:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 8:2:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/8:2:5)

הַיּוֹשֵׁב בְּקָרוֹן רַבָּנִין אָמְרִין מִשְׁקָל הוּא רִבִּי מֵאִיר אָמַר אֵינוֹ מִשְׁקָל.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
⁵³: He who sits in a cart, the rabbis say he is a weight, Rebbi Meïr says, he is no weight⁵⁴.

footnotes:
⁵³ In the Venice print and Leyden ms. this is still part of Halakhah 2.
⁵⁴ The rabbis assert that the animals have to work harder because of the passenger.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 8:2:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 8:2:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/8:2:6)

בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה לֹא הָיוּ אֶלָּא שְׁתַּיִם דִּכְתִיב וַיַּרְכֵּב אוֹתוֹ בְּמִרְכֶּבֶת הַמִּשְׁנֶה אֲשֶׁר לוֹ. עָמַד פַּרְעֹה וְעָשָׂה שָׁלֹשׁ דִּכְתִיב וְשָׁלִישִׁים עַל כּוּלּוֹ. עָמְדָה מַלְכוּת הָרִשְׁעָה וְעָשָׂה אוֹתָן אַרְבָּעָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
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 kingdom⁵⁵ arose and made it four.

footnotes:
⁵⁵ A standard name for the Roman government.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 8:3:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 8:3:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/8:3:1)

**משנה:** אֵין קוֹשְׁרִין אֶת הַסּוּס לֹא בִּצְדָדֵי הַקָּרוֹן וְלֹא לְאַחַר הַקָּרוֹן. וְלֹא אֶת הַלוּבְדְּקֵס לַגְּמָלִים. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר כָּל הַנּוֹלָדִים מִן הַסּוּס אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֲבִיהֶן חֲמוֹר מוּתָּרִין זֶה עִם זֶה. וְכֵן הַנּוֹלָדִים מִן הַחֲמוֹר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֲבִיהֶן סוּס מוּתָּרִין זֶה עִם זֶה אֲבָל הַנּוֹלָדִים מִן הַסּוּס עִם הַנּוֹלָדִים מִן הַחֲמוֹר אֲסוּרִין זֶה עִם זֶה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** One does not tie a horse to the sides or the back of a cart, or a Libyan donkey to camels. Rebbi Jehudah says, all animals born from a horse are permitted one with the other even if their father was a donkey, all animals born from a donkey are permitted one with the other even if their father was a horse, but those born from a horse are forbidden with those from a donkey.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 8:3:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 8:3:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/8:3:2)

**הלכה:** אֵין קוֹשְׁרִין אֶת הַסּוּס לֹא לִצְדָדֵי הַקָּרוֹן וְלֹא לְאַחַר הַקָּרוֹן. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי מֵאִיר פּוֹטֵר. אִם הָיָה מְסַיְיעוֹ בֵּין בְּמַעֲלָה בֵין בִּירִידָה הַכֹּל מוֹדִין שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִפְּנֵי שֶׁזֶּה נוֹשֵׂא עַצְלוּתוֹ שֶׁל זֶה וְזֶה נוֹשֵׂא עַצְלוּתוֹ שֶׁל זֶה. רַב אָמַר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנּוֹשְׁאִין אֶת הַחֶבֶל שֶׁבֵּנְתַּיִים.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** ⁵⁶: “One does not tie a horse to the sides or the back of a cart.” It is stated⁵⁷. 231, Tosephta *Kilaim* 5:4, it is stated that R. Meïr permits it; in his opinion it is not a non-prosecutable misdemeanor but is unquestionably permitted. The reason is stated in *Sifry*: Since it says, “do not plough with ox and donkey *together*”, any use that is not together is permitted.: Rebbi Meïr frees from prosecution. If it supported, whether in ascent or in descent, everybody agrees that it is forbidden. Rebbi Joḥanan said, because either one carries the laziness of the other⁵⁸. Rav says, because the rope is carried between them.

footnotes:
⁵⁶ In the Venice text, Halakhah 3.
⁵⁷ In both Sifry Deut
⁵⁸ Since the ox before the cart and the horse tied to the cart do not walk with the same speed, they both influence the movement of the cart and are “together”. In antiquity, horses were used for riding and drawing chariots but never civilian carts.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 8:3:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 8:3:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/8:3:3)

רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בָּעֵי קְשָׁרָן בִּשְׂעָרָן. מַה נָן קַיָימִין אִם בְּשֶׁקְּשָׁרוֹ בִּשְׂעָרוֹ כָּךְ אָנוּ אוֹמְרִים אָסוּר לְהַרְכִּיב בְּהֵמָה עַל גַּבֵּי חֲבֵירָתָהּ אִם בְּשֶׁקְּשָׁרוֹ הַחֶבֶל בִּשְׂעָרוֹ נֹאמַר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן נוֹשְׂאִין אֶת הַחֶבֶל שֶׁבֵּינְתַּיִים. רִבִּי יוֹנָה אָמַר אִיתְפַּלְּגוּן רַב וְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁזֶּה נוֹשֵׂא עַצְלוּתוֹ שֶׁל זֶה וְזֶה נוֹשֵׂא עַצְלוּתוֹ שֶׁל זֶה. רַב אָמַר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן נוֹשְׂאִין אֶת הַחֶבֶל שֶׁבֵּנְתַּיִים. מַה נְפַק מִן בֵּינֵיהוֹן קְשָׁרוֹ בִּשְׂעָרוֹ בֵּין עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרַב בֵּין עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן פָּטוּר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If he bound them by their hair⁵⁹? Where do we hold? In case he bound them together by their hair⁶⁰, should we say that it is forbidden to let one animal ride on another? If he tied them by a rope, we say because they carry the rope between them. Rebbi Jonah said, Rav and Rebbi Joḥanan disagree, Rebbi Joḥanan said, because either one carries the laziness of the other. Rav says, because they carry the rope between them. What is the difference? Both according to Rav as also according to Rebbi Joḥanan, if he bound them by their hair⁶¹ he is not punishable!

footnotes:
⁵⁹ Is this permitted or forbidden? The question is not formulated clearly.
⁶⁰ In this case, they cannot draw anything.
⁶¹ If no rope is used, the argument of Rav does not apply. Since the animals will not be able to draw if the cart is attached to their hair, the argument of R. Joḥanan does not apply.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 8:3:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 8:3:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/8:3:4)

וְלֹא הַלִיבְדְּקֵס. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי ניברקוס. מָאן דְּאָמַר לִיבְדְּקֵס עַל שֵׁם לִיבוּיֵ עַל שֵׁם לוּבִים וְכוּשִׁים בְּמִצְעֲדָיו. מָאן דְּאָמַר ניברקוס אבהטם מַהוּ אבהטם חֲמַר סְלָק. רִבִּי יוֹנָה רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָא בָּעִי גֵּרִים הַבָּאִים מִלִּיבּוֹי מַהוּ לְהַמְתִּין לָהֶן שְׁלֹשָׁה דוֹרוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה בּוֹצְרָיָיה מִן מַה דַּאֲנָן חָמֵי הָהֵן פּוּלָא מִצְרָיֵי כַּד רָטִיב אִינוּן צְוָוחִין לֵיהּ לוּבִּי כַּד הוּא נְגִיב אִינוּן צְוָוחִין לֵיהּ פּוּל מִצְרָיֵי. הָדָא אָמְרָה גֵּר מִלּוּבִי צָרִיךְ לְהַמְתִּין שְׁלֹשָׁה דוֹרוֹת. הָדָא אָמְרָה הִיא לוּב הִיא מִצְרַיִם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
⁶³ 5:1. A very detailed study of the first six sentences here and in *Šabbat* was done by J. N. Epstein, מבוא לנוסח המשנה ², Jerusalem 1964, pp. 97–99, where all variant readings of the names here, in *Šabbat*, and *Gen*.*rabba* are collected and commented on. The vocalization of ליבדקס is from the Kaufmann ms. of the Mishnah.“And not a Libyan⁶⁴ “horse”, “Libyan animal of the horse family” (E. G.). donkey.” Some Tannaïm state: “Not a *nybrqvs*⁶⁵. Perhaps also a composite of *equus*, “Nubian animal of the horse family” (E. G.)..” He who says *libdĕqēs* on the name of Lybian and (*Dan*. 11:43) “Lybians and Nubians in His train.” He who says *nybrqvs ‘bhṭs*⁶⁶ reads אמבטס ἀμβάτης, poetic for ἀναβάτης “stallion”. J. N. Epstein points out that because of the nasal pronunciation of מ in Galilean speech, an *m* can easily be inserted or disappear, so that אמבטס and אב(ה)טס are really one and the same and the text in *Kilaim* is not necessarily a corruption of the text in *Šabbat*., What is *‘bḥṭs*? A mounting donkey. Rebbi Jonah: Rav Hoshaia⁶⁷ asked: Do proselytes from Libya have to wait three generations⁶⁸. 23:8–9 prescribes that an Egyptian proselyte and his direct offspring may not marry anyone born to Jewish parents. {The discussion is purely theoretical since one holds that the political upheavals already from the time of Sanherib did displace all peoples originally mentioned in the Pentateuch, Mishnah *Yadayim* 4:4; cf. *Šulḥan ‘Arukh Even Ha’ezer* 4:10.}? Rebbi Jonah from Bostra⁶⁹ said, from what we see that they call a green Egyptian bean Libyan⁷⁰ in Arabic and Farsi; according to N. Brüll, the name is originally Coptic. but a dry one Egyptian, that means a proselyte from Libya has to wait three generations, it means that Libya is identical with Egypt.

footnotes:
⁶³ A parallel text is in Šabbat
⁶⁴ Perhaps the ending דקס refers to Latin equus
⁶⁵ An unexplained word that was unknown even to the rabbis of the Yerushalmi. The Arukh reads ניבדקוס, explainable by a change of liquids, l - n
⁶⁶ The parallel in Šabbat
⁶⁷ Amora of the third generation, Babylonian student of Rav Jehudah and Rav Huna, who went to Galilee with his brother and became prominent in the academies of the successors of R. Joḥanan. The two brothers earned their livelihood as shoemakers; their main customers were prostitutes who used to swear by the lives of these holy rabbis who never even looked at them.
⁶⁸ Deut
⁶⁹ Amora of the fifth generation, mentioned in connection with R. Mana and Rebbi Ḥuna.
⁷⁰ A bean is لوبيا lubia


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 8:3:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 8:3:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/8:3:5)

רִבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר נַחְמָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה הֲלָכָה כְדִבְרֵי הַתַּלְמִיד. דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמַים כָּל מִין פִּרְדּוֹת אֶחָד.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: Practice follows the student⁷¹111b). In the generally accepted opinion of Maimonides, based on the Babli but which can be supported by the position of the “Sages” here, R. Jehudah is restrictive: Only mules of the same kind of mother can be mated, not different kinds of mules nor mules with the pure species of their mother (*Kilaim* 9:6–7). R. Jehudah holds that among animals the father counts; the Sages take the opposite position.. The words of the Sages are that all kinds of mules are the same.

footnotes:
⁷¹ The “student” here is Rebbi Jehudah. It is implied that the opinion of the “Sages”, that all kinds of mules are the same and may be mated with one another, is the opinion of R. Jehudah’s teacher R. Aqiba. The ruling is also reported in the Babli (Ketubot


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 8:3:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 8:3:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/8:3:6)

וְאֵילוּ הֵן הַסִּימָנִין. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה כָּל שֶׁאָזְנָיו קְטָנוֹת אִמּוֹ סוּסָה וְאָבִיו חֲמוֹר. גְּדוֹלוֹת אִמּוֹ חֲמוֹרָה וְאָבִיו סוּס. רִבִּי מָנָא מְפַקֵּד לְאִילֵּין דְּרִבִּי יוּדָן נְשִׂיאָה אִין בְּעִיתוּן מִיזְבּוֹן מוּלִווֹן תּוּן זְבַנִּין לֹו אָזְנֵיהוֹן דְּקִיקִין שֶׁאִמּוֹ סוּסָה וְאָבִיו חֲמוֹר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
These⁷² 8:6, Notes 120 ff. Since practice follows R. Jehudah, one has to have a practical criterion of how to distinguish between the two kinds of mule that cannot be mated. are its signs: Rebbi Jonah says, if it has small ears, its mother is a horse and its father a donkey; if it has large ears its mother is a donkey and its father a horse. Rebbi Mana ordered those of the patriarch’s estate: If you want to buy a mule, you should buy one with small ears whose mother is a horse and whose father is a donkey.

footnotes:
⁷² An almost identical text is in Berakhot


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 8:3:7
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 8:3:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/8:3:7)

הַלּוֹבֶן מִן הָאִישׁ שֶׁמִּמֶּנּוּ מוֹחַ וַעֲצָמוֹת וְהַגִּידִים. וְהַאוֹדֶם מִן הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁמִּמֶּנָּה הָעוֹר וְהַבָּשָׂר וְהַדָּם. וְהָרוּחַ וְהַנֶּפֶשׁ וְהַנְּשָׁמָה מִשֶּׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא. וּשְׁלָשְׁתָּן שׁוּתָפִין בּוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
The white is from the male, from him are brain, bones, and sinews. The red is from the female, from her are skin, flesh, and blood. But breath, life force, and soul are from the Holy One, may He be praised; all three are partners in him⁷³ 31a. Since the text here deals with animals, the paragraph is somewhat out of place since animals are said not to have נשמה “soul” but only נפש “the animal force of life.”.

footnotes:
⁷³ “Him” is the child. A much more detailed explanation of the talmudic theory of heredity is in Babli Niddah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 8:3:8
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 8:3:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/8:3:8)

רִבִּי בָּא רַב יְהוּדָה בְשֵׁם רַב מוֹדִים חֲכָמִים לְרִבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּסוּס בֶּן סוּס בֶּן חֲמוֹר עִם חֲמוֹר בֶּן חֲמוֹר בֶּן סוּס. רִבִּי חַגַּיי רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אִיסִּת בְּנֵי עִזִּים בְּנֵי רְחֵלִים אֲסוּרִין זֶה עִם זֶה. דְּלֹא כֵן מָה אֲנָן אָמְרִין עֵז בֶּן עֵז בֶּן רָחֵל עִם רָחֵל בֶּן רָחֵל בֶּן עֵז.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Abba, Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rebbi Jehudah in the case of a horse from a horse from a donkey with a donkey from a donkey from a horse⁷⁵. Rebbi Ḥaggai, Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Issy⁷⁶: descendants of she-goats and ewes are forbidden one with the other. If it were not so, why do we say “a goat from a goat from a ewe with a ewe from a ewe from a goat.”

footnotes:
⁷⁵ The Sages hold that any two animals half horse and half donkey can be mated, but not an animal ⅔ horse with an animal ⅔ donkey.
⁷⁶ The otherwise unknown איסת must be איסי (Issy, Assi, Yasa), one of the known teachers of R. Zeïra.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 8:4:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 8:4:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/8:4:1)

**משנה:** הַפְּרוֹטִיּוֹת אֲסוּרוֹת וְהָרַמָּךְ מוּתָּר. וְאַדְנֵי הַשָּׂדֶה חַיָּה. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר מְטַמְּאוֹת בְּאוֹהֶל כֶּאָדָם. הַקּוֹפָּד וְחוּלְדַּת הַסְּנָאִין חַיָּה. חוּלְדַּת הַסְּנָאִין רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמֵר מְטַמֵּא בִּכְזַיִת בְּמַשָּׂא וְכַעֲדָשָׁה בְמַגָּע. שׁוֹר בַּר מִין בְּהֵמָה רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר מִין חַיָּה. כֶּלֶב מִין חַיָּה רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר מִין בְּהֵמָה. הַחֲזִיר מִין בְּהֵמָה. הֶעָרוֹד מִין חַיָּה. הַפִּיל וְהַקּוֹף מִין חַיָּה. וְהָאָדָם מוּתָּר עִם כּוּלָּן לַחֲרוֹשׁ וְלִמְשׁוֹךְ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** *Perotiot*⁷⁷,*parifredus* “horse” (E. G.).} are forbidden and wild horses⁷⁸ are permitted. A great ape⁷⁹ 1:5 he notes that an ape (قِرد) in Egypt is called נסנאס (in modern Farsi, it means Orang Utan). Rebbi Yose holds in *Yadaim* 1:5 that a great ape is not a human but the Sages there disagree. is a wild animal; Rebbi Yose says they cause impurity in a tent like a human⁸⁰. The hedgehog⁸¹ and a squirrel mole⁸² 1:5, fol. 80c). In *Lev*. 11:29, the mole is classified with the “crawling things”. The problem is with the qualifier סנאי (or סניי), which the older commentaries derive from סנה “small bush, tree producing fruit every second year”, but it is difficult to see a mole living in a bush. Maimonides describes the animal as “a kind of fox looking like a mole”. If this animal is classified as “wild animal”, its carcass or parts of it will make impure if touched or carried (even without touching) but only if there is at least the volume of an average olive; if it is classified as a “crawling thing” it does not make impure by being carried, but by touch it makes impure already by the volume of a small lentil. are wild animals. About the squirrel mole, Rebbi Yose says that the House of Shammai say it defiles in the amount of the volume of an olive in carrying, but in the volume of a lentil by touch.
The bison is a domesticated animal; Rebbi Yose says a wild animal⁹⁶. The dog is a wild animal; Rebbi Meïr says a domesticated animal. The pig is a domesticated animal, the wild donkey a wild animal. Elephant and monkey are wild animals. A human is permitted to plough and draw with all of them.

footnotes:
⁷⁷ All commentaries depending on gaonic sources declare these to be mules about which it is unknown whether their mother was a horse or a donkey and whose ears do not allow to determine the species of their mother. This implies that the opinion of R. Jehudah in the preceding Mishnah is accepted here as opinion of the anonymous majority and, therefore, practice to be followed. This would make superfluous the statement of R. Isaac bar Naḥman in the preceding Halakhah. Now in Arabic, פֻדַט فُرَط is “a horse which outruns all others” (from the root فرط “to surpass”). It might be that the entire sentence speaks of horses and that thoroughbreds are considered a separate species created by what today would be called genetic engineering, while wild horses are the same as a standard domesticated horse. {Cf. also Medieval Latin paraveredus
⁷⁸ Definition of Maimonides.
⁷⁹ Maimonides explains by Arabic נסנאס, نَسناَس “a fabled animal having only one foot,” in accordance with the Halakhah here, but in his Commentary to Mishnah Yadayim
⁸⁰ Only human corpses cause impurity in a tent, cf. Chapter 2, Note 180.
⁸¹ Biblical קִפֹּד. The Arabic quoted by Maimonides, קנפד, means either “rat” or “hedgehog.”
⁸² חולדה, the Biblical חֹלֶד, means “mole” (Ḥagigah
⁹⁶ For the Sages one is permitted to mate bison and cattle and to plough with an ox and a bison yoked together; for R. Yose it is forbidden.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 8:4:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 8:4:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/8:4:2)

**הלכה:** הַפְּרוֹטִיּוֹת אֲסוּרוֹת וְהָרַמָּךְ מוּתָּר כול'. רִבִּי אִימִּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָעְזָר רַמְכָה דְּלָא כַלִינֹס. כְּמַה דְּתֵימַר בְּנֵי הָרַמָּכִים.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “*Perotiot* are forbidden and wild horses are permitted.” Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: *Ramak* is without χαλινός “bit”. As one says (*Est*. 8:10): “the sons of wild horses”⁸³,*armāk*) is a mare, R. Ammi insists that in the verse the masculine ending is appropriate and the horses used by the Persian imperial mail were born to domesticated mares but sired by wild (unbridled) horses..

footnotes:
⁸³ While in Arabic, רמך (rimāk


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 8:4:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 8:4:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/8:4:3)

אַבְנֵי הַשָּׂדֶה חַיָּה. יַיסִי עַרְקִיי בַּר נַשׁ דְּטוּר הוּא וְהוּא חַיי מִן טִיבוּרֵייהּ אִיפְסַק טִיבוּרֵייהּ לָא חַיי. רִבִּי חָמָא בַּר עוּקְבָּא בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶן חֲנִינָה טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי וְכָל אֲשֶׁר יִגַּע עַל פְּנֵי הַשָּׂדֶה בְּגָדֵל עַל פְּנֵי הַשָּׂדֶה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“ ‘Field Stones’⁸⁴ 4|6|5 it is stated on *Lev*. 11:27: “ ‘All that walks on its soles’ that is the monkey, ‘all that walks’ includes hedgehog and squirrel mole, field stones and seals.” אבני השדה for אדני השדה refers to *Job* 5:23: “Your covenant is with ‘field stones’.” is an animal.” Yassi from Arke: It is a mountain man and lives from its navel. If its umbilical cord is cut, it cannot live. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The reason of Rebbi Yose (*Num*. 19:16): “All that touches [a slain person] on the surface of the field”, when it grows on the field.

footnotes:
⁸⁴ Reading of the Venice print; the Leyden ms. has two dots over the ב. But also in Sifra Šemini


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 8:4:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 8:4:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/8:4:4)

הַיָּרוֹרוֹת וְהַנַּעֲמִית הֲרֵי הֵן כְּעוֹף לְכָל דָּבָר. וְהַנָּחָשׁ הֲרֵי הוּא כְּחַיָּה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
*Yaror*⁸⁵. 11:42 which states that “all that walk on their bellies and all that walk on four legs” follow the same rules. and ostrich are like birds in all respects. The snake is like a wild animal.

footnotes:
⁸⁵ In Tosephta Kilaim 5:8 ירורין. From the context, the name must refer to a walking bird, with a voice resembling that of a jackal. The word was used for birds both in Symmachos and the Peshitto, cf. R. S. Lieberman, תוספתא כפשוטה זרעים (New York 1956) p. 652. The determinations here refer to the rules of defilement by dead animals. The rule for the snake is given in Lev


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 8:4:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 8:4:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/8:4:5)

רִבִּי חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן שִׁשָּׁה סְפֵיקוֹת הֵן. הַצְּלָף בְּאִילָן כְּבֵית שַׁמַּי. כְּלֵי חֶרֶס בִּכְלֵי נֶתֶר כְּבֵית שַׁמַּי. חוּלְדַּת הַסְּנָאִים בִּשְׁרָצִים כְּבֵית שַׁמַּי. פּוּל מִצְרִי בִזְרָעִים. וְאַנְדְרוֹגִינֹס בָּאָדָם. כּוֹי בְּחַיָּה דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל. רִבִּי חָמָא בַּר עוּקְבָּא אָמַר וְאַמָּה טְרִיקְסִין. מַהוּ וְאַמָּה טְרִיקְסִין רִבִּי יוֹנָה בוֹצְרָיָיה אָמַר טְרִיכְּסוֹן מַה מִבִּפְנִים מִבְּחוּץ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי מִן מַה דִכְתִיב וְאַרְבָּעִים בָּאַמָּה הָיָה הַבַּיִת הוּא הַהֵיכָל לִפְנָיי הָדָא אָמְרָה מִבִּפְנִים. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי מָנָא וְהָכְתִיב וַיַּעַשׂ אֶת בֵּית קוֹדֶשׁ הַקֳּדָשִׁים עֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה אוֹרֶךְ וְעֶשְׂרִים רוֹחָב. הָדָא אָמְרָה מִבְּחוּץ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There are six unresolved doubts. The caper-bush among trees following the House of Shammai⁸⁶, clay vessels like potash vessels following the House of Shammai⁸⁷ 2:1: “Vessels made of potash, the House of Shammai say they may become impure from the inside and their airspace like clay vessels and from the outside like metal vessels.” Clay vessels cannot become impure if an impurity touches their outside, cf. *Berakhot* Chapter Eight, Note 51., the squirrel mole among the crawling things following the House of Shammai⁸⁸; the Egyptian bean among seed-vegetables⁸⁹, the hermaphrodite among humans⁹⁰ 2., the *koi* among wild animals according to everybody⁹¹. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba said, also the *ṭrīqsīn* cubit⁹². What is the *ṭrīqsīn* cubit? Rebbi Jonah from Bostra said, confusion⁹³ 4:7) declares the word to be the name of the dividing wall in the first Temple.] A Gaonic commentary to *Yoma* explains טרקסין by an Arabic word בראסתג of unknown meaning. *Arukh* and Rashi declare טרקסין (spelling of Mishnah *Middot* 4:7) to be a Greek word and “inside-outside” its meaning. Compare Latin *intro*, adv. “inside” and *extra*, adv. “outside” for composite *inTREXtra* (E. G.)., “what is inside-outside?” Rebbi Yose said, since it is written (*1K*. 6:17) “forty cubits was the House, that is the inner Temple,” it means it is counted inside⁹⁴. Rebbi Mana said to him, but it is written (*2Chr*. 3:8) “He made the holiest of holies twenty cubits long and ten wide,⁹⁵” that means it is counted outside.

footnotes:
⁸⁶ In Halakhah 5:6, the House of Shammai make the capeṛbush subject to the restrictions both of vegetables and of trees (Note 92).
⁸⁷ Tosephta Kelim Baba Qama
⁸⁸ In the Mishnah here.
⁸⁹ Halakhah 3:2.
⁹⁰ Whether he is treated as a male or a female. This is detailed in Tosephta Bikkurim
⁹¹ Tosephta Bikkurim 2:1. Hulin 80a: "Koi is the wild goat; some people say it comes from a male goat and a female deer. Rebbi Yose said, koi is a separate species and the Sages were unable to decide whether it follows the rules of domesticated animals or those of wild animals." The difference between domesticated and wild kasher animals is explained in Chapter 1, Note 104.
⁹² The space in the Temple between the holy and the holiest of holies parts. The problem is whether it is part of the Temple hall or of the holiest of holies.
⁹³ Jastrow’s explanation is Greek τάραξιν, accusative of τάραξις “confusion”. [Maimonides (Commentary to Middot
⁹⁴ Since no provision is made for the wall, the wall is not part of the main part of the main room of the Temple but must be under the rules of the holiest of holies.
⁹⁵ That verse is badly misquoted: ויעש את בית קדשי הקדשים ארכו על פני רחב הבית אמות עשרים ורחבו אמות עשרים. It makes no difference for the objection.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 8:4:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 8:4:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/8:4:6)

שׁוֹר בַּר מִין בְּהֵמָה. רַבָּנִין אָמְרִין מִיכֹּא הֲוָה וְעָרַק לְתַמָּן. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר עִוקָּרֵיהּ מִן תַּמָּן הֲוָה. הָא שׁוֹר עִם שׁוֹר בַּר אֵינָן כִּלְאַיִם דְּלֹא כְרִבִּי יוֹסֵה דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵה אָמַר כִּלְאַיִם. וְאִילֵּין דִּמְתַרְגְּמִין וְתוֹרֵי בַּר וְרִאמְנִין כְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“The bison is a domesticated animal.” The rabbis say it was from here and escaped there⁹⁷. Rebbi Yose says, its roots were from there. Hence an ox and a bison are not *kilaim*, not following Rebbi Yose, since Rebbi Yose says it is *kilaim*. But those who translate “wild oxen and antelopes” follow Rebbi Yose⁹⁸. 14:5 as וְרִימְנִין וְתוֹרֵי בַּר..

footnotes:
⁹⁷ “Here” is agricultural society, “there” is the wild. The rabbis consider bison as cattle that became wild.
⁹⁸ Targum Pseudo-Jonathan translates ודישן ותאו in the list of wild animals of Deut


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 8:4:7
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 8:4:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/8:4:7)

רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל אַוָוז עִם אַוַוז מִדְבָּר כִּלְאַיִם זֶה בְזֶה. אַוָוז עִם אַוַוז הַיָּם תַּנֶּה רִבִּי יוּדָה בֶּן פָּזִי דְּבַר דָּלָיָה וְלָא יָדְעִין מָאן תַּנֶּה. קַל וָחוֹמֶר מַה אִם בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶן בַּיַּבָּשָׁה אַתְּ אָמַר אָסוּר בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁאֶחָד בַּיַּבָּשָׁה וְאֶחָד בַּיָּם לֹא כָּל שֶּׁכֵּן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Samuel: Goose and desert goose are *kilaim* one with the other. About goose and sea goose, Rebbi Judah ben Pazi stated in the name of Bar Dalaiah and we do not know what he stated. It is a conclusion *a minori ad majus*: If you say they are forbidden when both of them are on dry land, so much more if one is on dry land and one at sea.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 8:4:8
[Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 8:4:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Kilayim/r/8:4:8)

וְאָדָם מוּתָּר בְּכוּלָּן לַחֲרוֹשׁ וְלִמְשׁוֹךְ. כְּתִיב לֹא תַחֲרוֹשׁ בְּשׁוֹר וּבַחֲמוֹר יַחְדָּיו. בְּשׁוֹר וּבַחֲמוֹר אֵין אַתְּ חוֹרֵשׁ אֲבָל חוֹרֵשׁ אַתְּ בְּשׁוֹר עִם אָדָם בַּחֲמוֹר עִם אָדָם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“A person is permitted to plough and draw with all of them.” It is written (*Deut*. 22:10): “Do not plough with an ox and a donkey together.” (*Sifri Deut*. 231) You may not plough with an ox and a donkey but you may plough with an ox and a human, a donkey with a human.