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 another.
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(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 prohibition 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.
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). 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 use 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 kindled 56b , Ḥulin 115a in the name of Ḥizqiah. No Tannaitic source proposes to change the text from תקדש to תקד אש. .”
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 Josia 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 whipped. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, to give another measure besides six hand-breadths; here it is four cubits 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 about? 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 prohibit. 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”? For that which Rebbi Hila said, if you would say [the Torah] did not say it, what would you say? Or following what Rebbi Zeïra said, “do not sow your vineyard kilaim ,” creating your vineyard do not sow kilaim .”, 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.
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.”, 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.
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 ploughing? 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 listen “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 year.” 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] 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 divide. . 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.
According to R. Joḥanan it is obvious that one is permitted to dig in it 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 permission) only prohibits work on the field and in the vineyard, certainly not digging ditches. .
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 commandment. 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 it; “the prohibitions in it” are the two prohibitions spelled out in the verse. .
“I could think one would whip because of the additions.; 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 terms 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 Eleazar.
A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar 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 commandment. 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 offense, 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.
Rebbi Zeïra, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Cahana: He who is planting on the Sabbath is guilty because of sowing. 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 pruner? All was included in the notion of sowing; pruning was singled out for particular stringency. 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.
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 leading. 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 forty, “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 prosecution. 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 forbidden 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.} .
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 do 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.
5:6 . The Tosephta rejects Issi’s argument since it is written about David that he did all Eternal ( 1K . 15:5 ). Issi ben Aqabia 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 mixture, 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 family. But is it not written ( 1K . 1:33 ): “Let my son Solomon ride on my she-mule”? That was a creature from Creation.
Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba said in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina, he who leads kilaim by voice will be whipped 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. 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.” There it comes of its own volition, here it is forced to walk 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.. 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.”
: He who sits in a cart, the rabbis say he is a weight, Rebbi Meïr says, he is no weight.
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 kingdom arose and made it four.
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.
HALAKHAH: : “One does not tie a horse to the sides or the back of a cart.” It is stated. 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 other. Rav says, because the rope is carried between them.
Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If he bound them by their hair? Where do we hold? In case he bound them together by their hair, 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 hair he is not punishable!
5:1. A very detailed study of the first six sentences here and in Šabbat was done by J. N. Epstein, מבוא לנוסח המשנה , 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 Libyan “horse”, “Libyan animal of the horse family” (E. G.). donkey.” Some Tannaïm state: “Not a nybrqvs . 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 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 Hoshaia asked: Do proselytes from Libya have to wait three generations. 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 Bostra said, from what we see that they call a green Egyptian bean Libyan 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.
Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: Practice follows the student111b ). 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.
These 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.
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 him 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.” .
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 horse. Rebbi Ḥaggai, Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Issy: 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.”
MISHNAH: Perotiot , parifredus “horse” (E. G.).} are forbidden and wild horses are permitted. A great ape 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 human. The hedgehog and a squirrel mole 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 animal. 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.
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”, 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. .
“ ‘Field Stones’ 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.
Yaror . 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.
Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There are six unresolved doubts. The caper-bush among trees following the House of Shammai, clay vessels like potash vessels following the House of Shammai 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 Shammai; the Egyptian bean among seed-vegetables, the hermaphrodite among humans 2 . , the koi among wild animals according to everybody. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba said, also the ṭrīqsīn cubit. What is the ṭrīqsīn cubit? Rebbi Jonah from Bostra said, confusion 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 inside. Rebbi Mana said to him, but it is written ( 2Chr . 3:8 ) “He made the holiest of holies twenty cubits long and ten wide,” that means it is counted outside.
“The bison is a domesticated animal.” The rabbis say it was from here and escaped there. 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 Yose. 14:5 as וְרִימְנִין וְתוֹרֵי בַּר. .
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.
“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.