Makkot 21b — the Talmud in English

There is

a circumstance in which a person

plows one furrow

in a field,

and is liable for it

lashes

because of eight different prohibitions, if they warned him concerning all of them.

, если его заранее предупредили о каждом из них.

How?

a.

If he plows with an ox and a donkey

together, he transgresses because of “You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together” [Deuteronomy 22:10], here there is one prohibition.

b–c.

And

the ox and the donkey

are consecrated,

for the ox was consecrated with the sanctity of a firstborn, and by working with it he transgresses the prohibition “You shall not work with the firstborn of your ox” [ibid. 15:19], which is a warning concerning all offerings consecrated for the altar, which are forbidden for work. And the donkey belonged to property consecrated for the maintenance of the Temple, and he is liable for working with it because of sacrilege [for everyone who commits sacrilege intentionally is subject to a prohibition, as we derive by gzera shava “sin”—“sin” from teruma, concerning which it is written: “And no unauthorized person shall eat something holy.”]. Here there are three prohibitions.

d.

And

the plowing was of the type of plowing that turns over the seeds, and by this he transgressed the prohibition of sowing

kilayim in a vineyard.

That is, there were grape seeds and grain seeds on the ground, and he plowed the ground; through this plowing he covered them with earth. This covering is considered sowing kilayim [as will be explained in the Gemara], and he is lashed for it because of “You shall not sow your vineyard with kilayim” [ibid. 22:9]. Here there are four prohibitions.

e.

And

this was

in

the year of

the Sabbatical year,

and through his plowing, in order to cover the seeds—a plowing that, as stated, is considered sowing—he also transgresses the prohibition of sowing during the Sabbatical year, and is lashed because of “You shall not sow your field” [Leviticus 25:4]. Here there are five prohibitions.

f.

And

he performed this plowing on

a Festival day.

And he is also lashed because of “You shall not perform any labor of work.” Here there are six prohibitions.

g–h.

And

the plower was

a kohen and

also

a nazirite,

and the place of the plowing was

a place of impurity [in a cemetery], and he is lashed because of the prohibition stated concerning a kohen, “He shall not defile himself for a dead person” [Leviticus 21:1], and he is likewise lashed because of the prohibition stated concerning a nazirite, “He shall not come near any dead person” [Numbers 6:6]. Here there are eight prohibitions. It follows that through one act of plowing he becomes liable for eight sets of lashes.

Hanania ben Hakhinai says:

Even one who wears kilayim

while plowing transgresses an additional prohibition, “Nor shall a garment of kilayim made of shaatnez come upon you” [Leviticus 19:19].

The Sages said to him

that this prohibition should not be included with the plowing, since

it is not

from

the same matter;

this prohibition of wearing kilayim is not on account of the plowing.

He said to them,

Hanania ben Hakhinai:

Even the

prohibition of a

nazirite is not

from

the same matter,

for the prohibition that applies to a nazirite when he enters a place of impurity is on account of his walking, and not on account of the plowing.

And the first tanna holds that this prohibition, too, is considered to be on account of the plowing, since he cannot plow unless he walks with the animals and leads them.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: If he was wearing kilayim, and they warned him, and each time they warned him he removed it and put it on, he is liable for each and every one.

Rav Bibi said in the name of Rav Asi: It

is not necessary that he

actually remove it and put it on, but

even if he inserts and withdraws his arm from the sleeve of his garment,

he transgresses an additional prohibition of wearing kilayim, if they warned him.

Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, demonstrated

[he showed]

that

the form of the prohibition of wearing kilayim, for which one becomes liable each time, is through

putting on

[wearing]

and removing

[taking it off] actually.

Rav Ashi

disagrees and

says: Even if he delayed only long enough to remove it and put it on, he is liable.

That is, even if he does not remove it and put it on, but merely delays for the amount of time required for removal and putting on, he is liable if they warned him.

We learned in the Mishna:

There is

a circumstance in which a person

plows one furrow and is liable for it

lashes

because of eight prohibitions,

if they warned him concerning all of them.

Rabbi Yannai said: At an assembly [on a day of gathering or meeting that they had]:

the Sages counted

and

completed,

that

one who covers kilayim [who covers the seeds of kilayim with earth] so that they will take root well in the ground

is lashed

because of sowing.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said to them: Is this not our Mishna,

and is this not the law of our Mishna, which says

“There is one who plows one furrow and is liable for it because of eight prohibitions.

How?

One who plows with an ox and a donkey, and they are consecrated, and kilayim in a vineyard.”

One who plows with an ox and a donkey, and they are consecrated, and mixed species in a vineyard.”

And Rabbi Yoḥanan infers:

This plower who is liable

for it in our Mishna

because of kilayim—how can you find it?

For with regard to kilayim, it is not plowing that was prohibited, but their sowing!

Rather,

indeed,

the case must necessarily be one

in which they are covered as he goes,

for through the plowing he covers the seeds of kilayim, and therefore he is lashed because of sowing kilayim. It follows that Rabbi Yannai’s statement that one who covers kilayim is lashed is explained by our Mishna!

Rabbi Yannai said to

Rabbi Yoḥanan, by way of a parable:

If not

[if I had not]

lifted

[raised]

the potsherd for you,

[the potsherd that covered the pearl],

would you have found

[would you have found]

the pearl beneath it?

[the pearl beneath it].

That is: If I had not told you that by covering the kilayim with earth one transgresses because of sowing, you would have said that by covering the kilayim with earth one does not transgress because of sowing. You would not have said that this is the reason for making him liable in our Mishna; rather, you would have said that the Mishna makes him liable for lashes because he maintained the seeds and did not uproot them from their place, and that alone is what makes him liable.

Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: If not

[if I had not]

for a great man having praised you

[a great man—Rabbi Yannai—having praised you] for your interpretation of the Mishna,

I would have said

[I would have said] to interpret the Mishna differently: that the liability for covering the seeds with earth through plowing is not because of sowing, but because through this act, in which he covers the kilayim with earth, he actively maintains the kilayim. And

whose Mishna is it,

according to whose view does the Mishna that states this law proceed? It is according to

Rabbi Akiva, who says: One who maintains kilayim is lashed.

Accordingly, one who holds that a person who maintains kilayim in a vineyard is exempt would likewise hold that he is exempt when he covers the seeds.

But Rabbi Yannai praised you and conceded your interpretation of the Mishna: that the liability for covering the seeds of kilayim is because of sowing, and this applies according to everyone. Even according to the one who says that one who maintains kilayim in a vineyard is exempt, when he covers the seeds of kilayim with earth he is liable because of sowing. For if Rabbi Yannai’s intention had been to say that the liability for covering applies only according to Rabbi Akiva, who makes one liable merely for maintaining kilayim in a vineyard, he should have used Rabbi Akiva’s wording, that “one who maintains” kilayim in a vineyard is lashed. Since Rabbi Yannai used the expression “one who covers,” it follows that he makes him liable even according to the Rabbis, because covering with earth is considered sowing.

And the Gemara explains:

What is the source of Rabbi Akiva’s view?

Where did Rabbi Akiva say that one who maintains kilayim is liable?

As it was taught in a beraita: One who weeds,

who removes, in a field sown with kilayim, the bad plants from among the good ones so that the others will grow better, is lashed.

And

likewise

one who covers

the seeds

with kilayim is lashed.

And these words are according to Rabbi Akiva, for

Rabbi Akiva says: Even one who maintains

kilayim is lashed.

But the Rabbis disagree with him and hold that in the cases of weeding and covering he is not liable, since their primary purpose is maintaining the kilayim, and according to the Rabbis one who maintains kilayim is not lashed.

What is the reason of Rabbi Akiva,

who makes one liable for lashes even merely for maintaining kilayim?

As it was taught

in a beraita: It is written in the Torah,

“You shall not sow your field with kilayim”

[Leviticus 19:19].

I have

only that one is lashed

but

for one who

sows

by hand.

One who

maintains

kilayim without performing an act by hand—

from where

do we know that he too is lashed?

The verse states: “You shall not mate your animal with

kilayim—

you shall not

sow your field with

kilayim.”

That is, although Scripture says, “You shall not sow kilayim,” since it could have said, “You shall not mate your animal with kilayim,” and did not say this, but rather connected the word “kilayim” concerning animals to “You shall not sow kilayim in your field,” they expound from this that the word “kilayim” at the end of the clause concerning animals also refers to the words “you shall not” adjacent to it, and they expound as follows: “Kilayim in your field—no!” That is, you shall not have kilayim in any manner; and if you have kilayim, you must eliminate it. Therefore, one who maintains it in his possession and does not eliminate it transgresses a prohibition and is lashed for it.

Ulla said to Rav Naḥman: Since they counted and concluded that covering is considered the labor of sowing, then why did our Mishna, which counted the prohibitions of plowing on a Festival day, not count an additional liability for lashes?

Since they counted and concluded that covering is considered the labor of sowing, why did our Mishna, which counted the prohibitions involved in plowing on a Festival, not count an additional liability to lashes?

And let him also be lashed because of

the prohibition of

sowing on a Festival day!

In addition to the lashes that he receives because of plowing on a Festival day, so that he should be liable for nine sets of lashes, and not only eight.

He said to him,

Rav Naḥman to Ulla:

The tanna counted and left some out

[the Mishna counted some of the prohibitions and left some of them out].

Ulla said to him:

How can one say that the tanna left out some of the prohibitions? After all,

the tanna teaches

[in the Mishna the tanna states] an exact number of

eight

prohibitions,

and you say

[you wish to answer me] that

the tanna counted and left some out?!

Rabba said

to answer Ulla’s question, why the Mishna did not also count lashes because of sowing on a Festival day:

Because the Mishna holds that

there is a division of labors

only

on Shabbat.

For if one performed two or three labors on Shabbat in one state of unawareness, or performed one act that contains two distinct categories of labor, he is liable for a sin-offering for each labor separately, even though all the labors of Shabbat are included in one warning, since there is a special derivation concerning Shabbat to divide all the labors into separate prohibitions with regard to liability for sin-offerings.

And there is no division of labors on a Festival day.

For if one intentionally performed several distinct labors on a Festival day, he is lashed only once, since he transgressed only one prohibition, “You shall not perform any labor.” And on a Festival day the Torah did not establish the law of the division of labors with regard to lashes.

Ulla said to him,

Rabba:

This

[this answer]

shall be

the answer to my question.

Abaye raised an objection

[he challenged him]

to Rabba:

Рабе:

And

is it true that

there is no division of labors on a Festival day?

But was it not taught

[Pesaḥim 47b]:

One who cooks the sciatic nerve

in milk on a Festival day, and

afterward

eats it, is lashed five

times?

a.

He is lashed because of eating the sciatic nerve

.

b.

And he is lashed because of cooking on a Festival day without need,

since he transgressed “You shall not perform any labor,” for such cooking was not permitted under “for food,” since the sciatic nerve is not fit for eating because of its prohibition.

c.

And he is lashed because of cooking a sciatic nerve,

which is meat,

in milk,

for he transgressed “You shall not cook a kid in its mother’s milk,” since our tanna holds that the sciatic nerves impart flavor and are fit for eating.

d.

And he is lashed because of eating meat with milk.

For the Torah said three times, “You shall not cook a kid in its mother’s milk,” and from this they derived that one verse refers to cooking, one to eating, and one to deriving benefit.