Makkot 21b (כא:) — the Talmud in English

There is

a manner in which a person can

plow a single furrow

in a field,

and be liable for it

to receive lashes

for eight different negative commandments, if they warned him with regard to all of them.

How so?

a.

If he plows with an ox and a donkey

together, he violates the prohibition: “You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together” [Deuteronomy 22:10]; this is one negative commandment.

b–c.

And

the ox and the donkey

are consecrated,

as the ox was sacred with the sanctity of a firstborn, and by working it he violates 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 may not be used for work. And the donkey belonged to property consecrated for the maintenance of the Temple, and by working it he is liable for misuse of consecrated property since anyone who intentionally misuses consecrated property is subject to a negative commandment. This is derived by means of the gezera shava “sin” and “sin” from teruma, concerning which it is written: “And no non-priest shall eat anything sacred.” This is therefore three negative commandments.

d.

And

the plowing was of the type of plowing that turns over the seeds, and through this he violated the prohibition against sowing

mixed species 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 receives lashes for it on account of the prohibition: “You shall not sow your vineyard with mixed species” [ibid. 22:9]. This is therefore four negative commandments.

e.

And

this was

in

the year of

the Sabbatical year,

and by plowing in order to cover the seeds—a type of plowing that, as stated, is considered sowing—he also violated the prohibition against sowing during the Sabbatical year, and receives lashes on account of the verse: “You shall not sow your field” [Leviticus 25:4]. This is therefore five negative commandments.

f.

And

he performed this plowing on

a Festival.

He therefore also receives lashes on account of the prohibition: “You shall not perform any labor of work.” This is therefore six negative commandments.

g–h.

And

the plower

was a kohen and

was also

a nazirite,

and the place where he plowed was

a place of impurity [a cemetery]. He therefore receives lashes on account of the prohibition stated with regard to a kohen: “He shall not defile himself for the dead” [Leviticus 21:1], and he likewise receives lashes on account of the prohibition stated with regard to a nazirite: “He shall not come near a dead person” [Numbers 6:6]. This is therefore eight negative commandments. It follows that for a single act of plowing he becomes liable to eight sets of lashes.

Hanania ben Hakhinai says:

Hanania ben Hakhinai says: Even one who wears mixed species

while he is plowing violates an additional prohibition: “Nor shall a garment of diverse kinds of cloth come upon you” [Leviticus 19:19].

The Sages said to him:

This prohibition should not be included among the prohibitions involved in plowing, since

it is not

of

the same nature;

this prohibition against wearing mixed species is not caused by the plowing.

He said to them:

Hanania ben Hakhinai:

Even the

prohibition of

a nazirite is not

of

the same nature,

as the prohibition that applies to a nazirite when he enters a place of impurity is caused by his walking, and not by the plowing.

And the first tanna maintains that this prohibition too is considered to be caused by the plowing, since he cannot plow unless he walks with the animals and drives them.

Gemara:

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

Rav Beיבי said in the name of Rav Asi: It is not

necessary that he actually

remove and put it on again; rather,

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

he violates an additional prohibition against wearing mixed species, if they warned him.

Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, demonstrated

[he showed]

by means of Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika

[through illustration] that the manner in which wearing mixed species constitutes a prohibition for which one becomes liable each time is through

putting it on

[wearing it]

and taking it off

[removing it] literally.

Rav Ashi

disagrees and

says: Even if he remained only for the amount of time required to remove and put it on, he is liable.

That is, even if he does not remove it and put it on again, but remains for the time required for removing and putting it on, he is liable if they warned him.

We learned in the Mishna:

There is

a manner in which a person

plows a single furrow and is liable for it

to receive lashes

for eight negative commandments,

if they warned him with regard to all of them.

Rabbi Yannai said: At an assembly

[on a day of council or gathering that they held],

the Sages counted

and

concluded

that

one who covers mixed species

[who covers the seeds of mixed species with earth] so that they will take root properly in the ground,

receives lashes

for sowing.

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

and is this not the law stated in our Mishna, which says:

“There is one who plows a single furrow and is liable for it on account of eight negative commandments.

How so:

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

on account of mixed species—how can we find such a case?

After all, with regard to mixed species, it is not plowing them that is prohibited, but rather sowing them!

Rather,

indeed,

the case must be one

in which they are covered as he goes,

so that through the plowing he covers the seeds of mixed species, and therefore receives lashes for sowing mixed species. It follows that Rabbi Yannai’s statement that one who covers mixed species receives lashes is explained by our Mishna!

Rabbi Yannai said to him,

Rabbi Yoḥanan, by way of a parable:

If not

[had I not]

raised

[lifted]

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: Had I not told you that by covering mixed species with earth one violates the prohibition of sowing, you would have said that one who covers mixed species with earth does not violate the prohibition of sowing. You would not have said that this is the reason that the Mishna makes him liable; rather, you would have said that the Mishna makes him liable to lashes because he maintained the seeds and did not uproot them from their place, and that this alone is what renders him liable.

Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: If not

[had it not been]

that a great man praised you

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

I would have thought

[I would have said] to interpret the Mishna differently: The liability for covering the seeds of mixed species with earth through plowing is not on account of sowing; rather, through this act, by which he covers the mixed species with earth, he actively maintains the mixed species. And

whose view is the Mishna,

which states this law? It is in accordance with the view of

Rabbi Akiva, who says: One who maintains mixed species receives lashes.

According to this, one who maintains mixed species in a vineyard is exempt would likewise maintain that one who covers the seeds is exempt.

But Rabbi Yannai praised you and accepted your interpretation of the Mishna: The liability for covering the seeds of mixed species is on account of sowing, and this applies according to everyone. Even one who says that one who maintains mixed species in a vineyard is exempt holds that one who covers the seeds of mixed species with earth is liable on account of sowing. For had Rabbi Yannai intended to say that liability for covering applies only according to Rabbi Akiva, who holds one liable merely for maintaining mixed species in a vineyard, he should have used Rabbi Akiva’s wording, that one who “maintains” mixed species in a vineyard receives lashes. Since Rabbi Yannai used the word “covers,” this indicates that he holds one 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 mixed species is liable?

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

who removes weeds from among the desirable plants in a field sown with mixed species, so that the other plants will grow better, receives lashes.

And

likewise

one who covers

the seeds

with mixed species receives lashes.

And these statements are according to Rabbi Akiva, because

Rabbi Akiva says: Even one who maintains

mixed species receives lashes.

But the Rabbis disagree with him and maintain that one is not liable for weeding or covering, since their primary purpose is to maintain the mixed species; and according to the Rabbis, one who maintains mixed species does not receive lashes.

What is the reason of Rabbi Akiva,

who renders one liable to lashes even for merely maintaining mixed species?

As it is taught

in a beraita: The Torah states:

“You shall not sow your field with mixed species”

[Leviticus 19:19].

I have only

that one who

sows

mixed species

by hand

receives lashes.

One who

maintains

mixed species without performing an act by hand—

from where

do we know that he too receives lashes?

The verse states: “You shall not mate

your animal with

mixed species—

your field shall not

sow mixed species.”

That is, although the verse says, “You shall not sow mixed species,” since it could have said, “You shall not mate your animal with mixed species,” but did not do so; rather, it juxtaposed the word “mixed species” concerning animals with “your field shall not sow mixed species,” the Sages derive from this that the word “mixed species” at the end of the phrase concerning animals also refers to the adjacent words “your field shall not.” They interpret it as follows: “Mixed species in your field—no!” That is, you may not have mixed species in any manner, and if you have mixed species, you must eliminate them. Therefore, one who maintains them in his possession and does not eliminate them violates a negative commandment and receives lashes for it.

Ulla said to Rav Naḥman:

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 receive lashes on account of

the prohibition against

sowing on a Festival!

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

He said to him,

Rav Naḥman said to Ulla:

The tanna stated some and omitted some

[the Mishna counted some of the negative commandments and omitted some of them].

Ulla said to him:

How can one say that the tanna omitted some of the negative commandments? After all,

the tanna stated

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

eight

negative commandments,

and you say

[you wish to answer me] that

the tanna stated some and omitted some?!

Rabba said

in answer to Ulla’s question as to why the Mishna did not also count lashes for sowing on a Festival:

Because the Mishna maintains that

the division of labors applies

only

on Shabbat.

For if one performed two or three labors on Shabbat in a single lapse of awareness, or performed one act that involved two distinct categories of labor, he is liable to bring a sin-offering for each labor individually, despite the fact that all the labors of Shabbat are included in a single warning, since there is a special derivation concerning Shabbat that divides all the labors into separate prohibitions with regard to liability for sin-offerings.

And there is no division of labors on a Festival.

If one intentionally performed several distinct labors on a Festival, he receives only one set of lashes, since he violated only one negative commandment: “You shall not perform any labor.” On a Festival, the Torah did not establish the law of the division of labors with regard to lashes.

Ulla said to him,

let this

[this]

be

the answer to my question.

Abaye raised an objection

[he raised an objection to him]

to Rabba:

And

is it true that

there is no division of labors on a Festival?

But it was taught

[Pesachim 47b]:

One who cooks the sciatic nerve

in milk on a Festival, and

afterward

eats it receives five

sets of lashes.

a.

He receives lashes for eating the sciatic nerve

itself.

b.

And he receives lashes for cooking on a Festival when it is not needed,

as he violated the prohibition “You shall not perform any labor,” since such cooking was not permitted under the category of “food for a person.” After all, the sciatic nerve is unfit for eating because of its prohibition.

c.

And he receives lashes for cooking the sciatic nerve,

which is meat,

in milk,

as he violated the prohibition “You shall not cook a kid in its mother’s milk,” because the tanna of this beraita maintains that the sciatic nerves impart flavor and are fit for eating.

d.

And he receives lashes for eating meat with milk.

Since the Torah stated “You shall not cook a kid in its mother’s milk” three times, the Sages derived that one verse refers to cooking, one to eating, and one to deriving benefit.