פירוש על כלאים 8:7

Introduction This mishnah goes over the various basic laws and prohibitions with all four different types of kilayim.

Kilayim of the vineyard: it is forbidden both to sow and to allow to grow, and it is forbidden to derive benefit from them. Kilayim of the vineyard are grain or vegetables that grow in a vineyard. This is the strictest form of kilayim. It is forbidden to sow the grain or vegetables in the vineyard and it is even forbidden to allow grain or vegetables to grow in the vineyard. Finally, if this does occur, it is prohibited to derive any benefit from the produce or the grapes. This would mean that one couldn’t even use such products to feed animals, nor could one sell them to non-Jews.

Kilayim of seeds: it is forbidden both to sow and to allow to grow, but it is permitted to eat them, and all the more so to derive benefit from them. Kilayim of seeds are when produce of two different kinds of seed are grown in the same field. It is prohibited to sow or allow these seeds to grow, just as it is with kilayim of the vineyard. However, if they do grow it is permitted to eat them, and if it is permitted to eat them, it is all the more so permitted to derive other types of benefit from them.

Kilayim of clothing: is permitted in all respects, except that it is forbidden to wear them. Kilayim of clothing is a mixture of wool and linen, called shatnez (Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22:11). It is permitted to derive benefit from such mixtures. It is also permitted to weave and sell or own these types of clothing. The only prohibition is to wear them.

Kilayim of beasts: it is permitted to raise and to keep, and it is only prohibited to cross-breed them. Kilayim of beasts refers to either cross-breeding or cross-yoking. This section notes that it is permitted to raise animals born of cross-bred parents. For instance one can raise and keep a mule. It is only forbidden to cross-breed animals in order to make the mule in the firstplace.

Kilayim of beasts: these one are prohibited with these. This introduces the topic which the rest of the chapter will discuss cross-yoking animals, that is yoking together different types of animals.

Introduction This mishnah teaches that it is forbidden to yoke together all potential combinations of two different species of animal and plow with them or even pull them or lead them while yoked together.

A beast (behemah) with a beast [of another species]; a wild animal (hayyah) with a wild animal [of another species]; a behemah with a hayyah; a hayyah with a behemah; an unclean beast with an unclean beast [of another species]; a clean beast with a clean beast [of another species]; or an unclean beast with a clean beast; or a clean beast with an unclean beast; they are forbidden for plowing, and [it is forbidden] to pull them or lead them [tied together]. A behemah is a domesticated animal such as an ox. A hayyah is a wild animal such as a deer. In this exhaustive mishnah we learn that all potential combinations are prohibited, even though it is unlikely that some of these animals would ever be yoked at all.

The person driving [the two different animals yoked together] receives the forty [lashes]. And the person sitting in the wagon receives the forty [lashes]. But Rabbi Meir exempts [the latter]. This section explains who exactly is liable for transgressing the laws of kilayim, or cross-yoking, of beasts/wild animals. According to the first opinion, there are two essential prohibitions which one can transgress driving the kilayim animals and sitting in a wagon being driven by the two animals. Although the one sitting in the wagon is not the one leading or actually causing the plowing to be done, he is still liable. The Yerushalmi explains that by sitting in the wagon he balances the weight and thereby contributes to the plowing being done. Both of these people have transgressed the biblical commandment and hence they are liable for lashes, the biblical penalty applicable to one who has transgressed a negative commandment. When the mishnah says that one “receives the forty [lashes]” it is expressing that one has transgressed a biblical commandment. Rabbi Meir holds that only the one who actually leads the wagon is liable. Evidently, he holds that the one who sits in the wagon does not contribute to the plowing and is therefore not liable.

[The tying of] a third [animal different from the two already harnessed to a wagon] to the straps [of those animals] is prohibited. In this case two animals of the same species have already been yoked together when someone yokes a third animal, different from the first two. This is prohibited. Assumedly, one might have thought that this was not prohibited because the Torah only mentions one who yokes two different animals together. The mishnah comes to teach us that even three (two of which are the same) are prohibited.

They may not tie a horse neither to the sides of a wagon [drawn by oxen] nor behind the wagon, nor [may they tie] a Libyan donkey to [a wagon drawn by] camels. There are really two laws in this section. First of all, the prohibition of kilayim includes tying an animal to the opposite side of a wagon drawn by a different species. One might have thought that since only the front animal is drawing the wagon, this does not create a situation of kilayim, therefore the mishnah teaches that it does. The other halakhah is that Libyan donkeys cannot be attached to a wagon drawn by camels. Obviously these are different species, so we might ask what the mishnah is teaching. Albeck explains that we might have thought that when attached to the same wagon these animals don’t really pull together, and hence it is not prohibited. Therefore, the mishnah teaches that even though this is not an effective work arrangement, it is nevertheless prohibited.

Rabbi Judah says: all [mules] born from horses, even though their father is a donkey, are permitted one with another. Likewise [mules] born from donkey, even though their father is a horse, are permitted one with another. But [mules] born from a horse with [mules] born from donkeys are prohibited one with another. According to Rabbi Judah, when determining the species of an animal, we follow the mother, just as we do when determining the Jewishness of a human being. Thus the offspring of a female horse is a horse, even if its father was a donkey. Such a mule can be yoked with the offspring of a female horse and male horse. The same holds true in the opposite scenario. However, a mule born to a female horse and a mule born to a female donkey cannot be yoked together because they are of different species.

Introduction This mishnah continues to deal with mules and whether they can be yoked together. It then goes on to categorize a few other animals as a “hayyah,” wild animals. We shall see below why such categorization has halakhic ramifications.

Mules of uncertain parentage are forbidden [one with another,] If it is unclear whether a given mule was born of a female horse or a female donkey then it can’t be yoked together with a different mule, lest the two be of different species. Since the prohibition of kilayim is “deoraita,” or toraitic origin, in cases of doubt we rule strictly.

And a ramakh is permitted. A rammakh is a mule whose mother is known to be a horse. Hence it is permitted to yoke this type of mule with another ramakh. Albeck provides an alternative explanation to the “ramakh” halakhah. The ramakh does not actually aid in pulling the plow, and therefore there is no prohibition of yoking it with another animal.

Wild man-like creatures are [in the category of] hayyah. Wild man-like creatures are probably a type of monkey. The mishnah categorizes this animal as a “hayyah” a wild beast. Hence the laws of kilayim are applicable to it. Were we to have categorized it as a “man” the laws of kilayim would not have applied.

Rabbi Yose says: they cause impurity in a tent like a human being. Rabbi Yose says that despite the fact that this animal is a “hayyah” and not considered like a human, when it comes to transmitting impurity in a tent, the animal is treated like a person. This means that if something overhangs this dead animal and another person, impurity goes from the carcass and impurifies the human being.

The hedgehog and the bush-mole are [in the category of] hayyah. The hedgehog and the bush-mole are categorized as “hayyah.” Again, this means that the laws of kilayim do apply to them. Without this mishnah we might have thought that they belong to the category of “sheretz,” creepy crawly thing, to which the laws of kilayim do not apply.

The bush-mole: Rabbi Yose says in the name of Bet Shammai: an olive's size [of its carcass] renders a person carrying it unclean, and a lentil’s size [of its carcass] renders a person touching it unclean. Rabbi Yose says that according to Bet Shammai, the bush-mole is a doubtful hayyah/doubtful sheretz, meaning that it might be either and we just don’t know how to categorize it. Since its categorization is doubtful, the stricter impurity laws of both categories apply. What this means is that an olive’s worth of its flesh transmits impurity in a tent, as does the flesh of the carcass of a hayyah (or behemah). However, a lentil’s worth of its flesh transmits impurity to one who touches it, as does the flesh of the carcass of a sheretz.

The wild ox [it is in the category of] behemah. But Rabbi Yose says: [it is in the category] of hayyah.
The dog [it is in the category of] hayyah. But Rabbi Yose says: [it is in the category] of behemah.
The pig [it is in the category of] behemah.
The wild donkey [it is in the category of] hayyah.
The elephant and the monkey [they are in the category of] hayyah.
A human being is permitted to draw, plow, or lead with any of them.
This mishnah classifies various animals into “behemah” domesticated beast or “hayyah” wild animal.
Section one: The wild ox is considered a behemah. This means that one can yoke it together with a domesticated ox. Rabbi Yose disagrees and holds that it is in the category of hayyah, and therefore cannot be yoked together with its domesticated cousin.
Section two: A dog, according to the first opinion, is a hayyah, whereas Rabbi Yose considers it to be a behemah. (It does seem that there are some dogs which are more “domesticated” than others ours was much more on the hayyah side, despite our best efforts to make it into a behemah). We should note that even if a dog is domesticated it couldn’t be yoked together with another species. This causes us to ask why the mishnah bothers classifying this and the other animals that appear in the next three sections. According to the Tosefta, the reason for this classification is that if a person sells all of his “behemot” or all of his “hayyot” we need to know which animals he has sold. It also seems to me that just as zoologists like categorizing animals and botanists like categorizing plants, rabbis liked categorizing as well.
Section six: A human being cannot be considered “kilayim” with any animal. This means that a human being can draw a wagon, or plow with any animal. The words “or lead” are probably a mistake and shouldn’t be here because animals don’t generally lead other animals.